ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Youth Unemployment

Robert Halfon: What steps he is taking to reduce youth unemployment.

Mel Stride: What steps he is taking to reduce youth unemployment.

Nick Smith: What his approach is to tackling youth unemployment.

Karl McCartney: What steps he is taking to reduce youth unemployment.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is good to see so many people in the Chamber who have discovered an interest in work and pensions.
	Work experience and apprenticeships are central to improving the prospects of young unemployed people. We are making up to 100,000 work experience placements available and strengthening the links between the work experience programme and apprenticeships. We are also providing additional Jobcentre Plus help for 16 and 17-year-old jobseeker’s allowance claimants and offering earlier entry into the Work programme. It is worth reminding ourselves that of the 991,000 16 to 24-year-olds who are unemployed under the International Labour Organisation measure, 270,000 are full-time students. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) will be aware that Harlow is one of the Government’s new enterprise zones.

Robert Halfon: I am, of course, delighted that Harlow is an enterprise zone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of cutting youth unemployment is to encourage Government contractors to hire apprentices? Figures from the House of Commons Library show that if just one apprentice was hired for every £1 million of public procurement, it would instantly create 238,000 apprenticeships and cut youth unemployment by a quarter.

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Under the new arrangements, suppliers must provide an apprenticeships and skills report within six months of the contract start date. The idea is that they will periodically show their progress towards meeting a commitment to employ 5% of apprentices in delivering the Department for Work and Pensions contract to which they are entitled. Work programme providers will be paid primarily for the results that they achieve, which means that they will be under pressure to do a similar thing.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend will be aware that under the previous Government, youth unemployment rose by 40%. Will he reassure the House that the measures he has just outlined will ensure that under this Government we do not have a repeat of that shameful record?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right that youth unemployment rose from about 2004, regardless of a growing economy. One problem was that when the previous Government came to power, there was a guaranteed training place for all 16 to 18-year-olds,
	which they scrapped. That was one of the worst, most short-sighted decisions that any Government have ever made.

Nick Smith: Youth unemployment in Blaenau Gwent grew by a massive 12.8% last year. The Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion has highlighted the benefits of the future jobs fund, which helped 500 young people in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State look at bringing back the future jobs fund, given the current crisis of youth unemployment?

Iain Duncan Smith: As the hon. Gentleman should know, we made a commitment to complete the placements that had been committed to until March. That meant that there were nearly 64,000 additional places under the future jobs fund, bringing the total to 105,000 places. We believe that the future jobs fund was an expensive way to try to get people into employment. Almost half of those who went in have ended up back on benefits.

Karl McCartney: Is my right hon. Friend aware of research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development which suggests that only 12% of employers planned to recruit school leavers aged 16 in the three months to September 2011, and that just 15% intended to recruit school leavers aged 17 to 18? That issue was raised during my visit to Lincoln college on Friday. I suspect that he is as concerned as I am by those statistics. Will he tell the House what the Government will do to encourage employers to invest further in our youth?

Iain Duncan Smith: We are talking a lot to employers about that problem. My hon. Friend is right about it. I return to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) about ending the training scheme. That really affected 16 to 17-year-olds. I have brought in the £30 million innovation fund to look at ways in which we can give people approaching the age of 16 better skills for the work force. Employers have told us that many people who leave school at that age are simply not ready for work. We have allowed jobcentres to work with many of those people to get them ready for work. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl McCartney) is absolutely right that this matter is a priority for us.

Liam Byrne: Youth unemployment is now the highest it has ever been. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chancellor that Britain is now “a safe haven”?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman’s linkage is in that question. Youth unemployment is high now, which is deeply regrettable, but he needs to take some responsibility for that. We have to remember that when we came into power, after a period of growth before the recession, the level of youth unemployment was higher under the last Government than the level that they inherited back in 1997. Frankly, his lectures on youth unemployment are like crocodile tears in the desert.

Liam Byrne: Since this Government have taken office, they have closed the future jobs fund and shut down the flexible new deal, and replaced them with a youth work scheme that costs less than the Department spends on
	stationery and guarantees interviews, not jobs, and with a Work programme that turns out on closer inspection to be all programme and no work. Meanwhile, youth unemployment is going through the roof.
	I looked for the Department’s flagship youth unemployment policy on its website this morning, and what does it say?
	“Page not found. The page you are looking for may have been removed or moved to the National Archives.”
	So much for the priority that the Government gave to youth employment.
	The last time unemployment was this high, it was not the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) who was trying to bring down the Government over Europe but the Secretary of State himself, the commander-in-chief of the Maastricht rebels. Instead of today’s debate, on which the Prime Minister has wasted so much time, should we not be having a debate about how we put a proper tax on bankers’ bonuses to get 100,000 young people back to work?

Iain Duncan Smith: I must say, the right hon. Gentleman coming up with the wrong page suggests more about his ability to negotiate the website than about the Department.
	I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I said before: it is time the Opposition took responsibility for the mess that they got us in before we took over. Since we walked through the door we have had in place work clubs, work experience, apprenticeship offers, sector-based work academies, the innovation fund, European social fund support, the skills offer, the access to apprenticeships programme, Work Together, the Work programme, Work Choice, mandatory work activity and Jobcentre Plus. He has to recognise that under Labour’s watch, youth unemployment rose to a level higher than that at which they found it in 1997. It was a disgrace.

Multiple Sclerosis Sufferers

David Morris: What steps he is taking to encourage people with multiple sclerosis to return to work.

Maria Miller: The Government are committed to ensuring that individuals with conditions such as multiple sclerosis have the support that they need to find, and remain in, work. A comprehensive range of work support for individuals with serious fluctuating conditions is provided through the Work programme, Work Choice and Access to Work.

David Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I convey the wishes of my constituents in the local MS society for there to be better ways forward than those provided under the previous Government?

Maria Miller: I agree that the work of the Multiple Sclerosis Society is to be applauded, and I am sure that the Lancaster, Morecambe and district branch will join many other organisations in welcoming the measures in the Welfare Reform Bill, which is currently in the other place, including universal credit. Those measures will address the unacceptable imbalances inherent in the
	current welfare system, to ensure that people suffering from fluctuating conditions such as MS cannot be written off to a lifetime of dependency in future.

Anne McGuire: Department for Work and Pensions research on disability living allowance in work has indicated that those receiving DLA are, on average, more severely impaired than others and have a greater likelihood of multiple disabilities, including mental health conditions. Additionally, they are disadvantaged in the labour market because of the types of their impairment, and carry the greatest employment disadvantage.
	The new personal independence payment assessment has been criticised by 23 leading disability organisations as being too medicalised and not taking into account the social and environmental barriers that disadvantage disabled people in the jobs market. Will the Minister share with us just how many disabled people she expects to get back into work as a result of her DLA proposals, given that the only figure that we have on the record is that the Government want to make a 20% cut to the DLA budget?

Maria Miller: I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. Lady tries to link disability living allowance to returning to work, given that in the past she has held the position that I hold now. It is absolutely clear that DLA, and indeed the PIP, which will take over from it, are not linked to work. I should think we would want to make that clear to people who are listening to these questions.

Stephen Lloyd: A recent report by the Work Foundation found that up to 44% of people in the UK with MS retire early due to their condition, a higher percentage than the European average of just 35%. What plans does the Minister have to support individuals with MS to stay in the work force once they are in employment?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he does a lot of work in this area, and I welcome his contribution. He will be aware that through the Sayce recommendations, we are specifically considering how we can increase the role of Access to Work. That could have a particularly positive impact on people with MS. We already have a budget of some £105 million supporting about 35,000 people through Access to Work, and the Sayce recommendations indicate that the number could be doubled if there is a reprioritisation of how Government money is used.

Work Programme

Anne Begg: If he will publish monthly information on the number of people successfully placed in jobs by Work programme contractors and the cost per job outcome.

Chris Grayling: We are working to guidelines set by the UK Statistics Authority to ensure we publish statistics that meet high-quality standards at the earliest opportunity. Statistics on referrals and attachments to the Work programme will be published from spring 2012 and job outcome data from autumn 2012. We will also publish
	the average cost per job outcome for claimants who have been on the programme for 24 months as part of our transparency indicators.

Anne Begg: I have to say that I am very, very disappointed with that reply. I cannot understand why it will be more than 12 months before the Government produce statistics on job outcomes and the cost per job. After eight months of the future jobs fund, we had the statistics on job outcomes for the first four months of the scheme. I cannot see why the Government should take any longer than that. What do they have to hide?

Chris Grayling: I have the utmost respect for the hon. Lady, but she needs to look again at how the Work programme works. We are not making an outcome payment to providers for six months. That is a really good deal for the taxpayer, because before providers can receive payment, they must ensure not simply that that have got somebody into work for a week to boost statistics, but that they keep them in work for a sustained period. The Government cannot produce robust statistics under the guidance produced by the UK Statistics Authority if we try to do so earlier.

Charlie Elphicke: Is not the key point about the Work programme that payment by results and packages tailored to individual needs are likely to make the cost per successful job outcome lower, and the number of jobs achieved higher?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole point of the Work programme is real investment in the long-term unemployed. Providers will take the requisite time to get them into work, but the Government will pay the bill only when people are successfully in long-term employment. That is a much better deal than under previous schemes from the previous Government. He is right that the Work programme is a much better deal for the taxpayer.

Stephen Timms: The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General says that openness and transparency on public services data will be a
	“core part of every bit of government business”,
	so why not this bit of Government business? Why is the Minister not only refusing to publish performance data but banning Work programme providers from publishing their own data, as many did under the new deal and would like to do now? He is threatening to withdraw their contracts if they publish that data. What is he trying to hide, and will he at least lift that ban?

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to the answer I gave a moment ago, but he would also do well to remember that his Government set up the current rules on national statistics. He would surely want statistics to be published properly and in an appropriate time frame, under the guidance of the UK Statistics Authority. I do not believe in giving information out haphazardly. Let us do it properly, according to the guidance and process he set up when he was in government.

Credit Unions

Jesse Norman: What steps his Department is taking to support access to lending from credit unions.

Jeremy Lefroy: What steps his Department is taking to support access to lending from credit unions.

Steve Webb: Since 2006, the Department has spent more than £100 million through its growth fund to encourage credit unions. In addition, since March this year, a further £11.8 million has been invested. The Department is now conducting a study into how best we can support credit unions and will report shortly.

Jesse Norman: Only 2% of people in this country are members of credit unions such as the excellent Money Box in my constituency, compared with 44% of people in the United States. What role can Jobcentre Plus play in helping credit unions to reach more people?

Steve Webb: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his involvement with the all-party group on credit unions and his commitment to the cause. Jobcentre Plus is keen to work closely with credit unions, and we are currently piloting a scheme in Manchester and Newcastle in which jobcentres share office space to see whether they can assist credit unions at a local level.

Jeremy Lefroy: I declare an interest as a member of the Staffordshire credit union. For more lending, we need more saving. What steps are the Government taking to encourage payroll saving in credit unions?

Steve Webb: The process of long-term saving through auto-enrolment in workplace pensions is imminent, but there has been a big growth in workplace coverage of occupational workplace individual savings accounts, which is an encouraging development. We are looking to see what more we can do to encourage that trend.

Christopher Leslie: Many who use credit unions also need help to access credit advice. What is the Minister doing to help those who will lose out when he scraps the £27 million financial inclusion fund from next March?

Steve Webb: One of the things we are looking at as part of our feasibility study on the future of credit unions is their crucial role in supporting people who need financial advice and assistance. That work will report back to the Department next month.

Madeleine Moon: I declare an interest as one of the almost 3,000 members of the Bridgend Lifesavers credit union, which has loans of more than £500,000 but savings of £1 million and is keeping people out of the hands of doorstep loan sharks and the sadly growing numbers of pawnbrokers on our high streets. What can we do to ensure that people see credit unions, rather than doorstep loan sharks, as the way to save and borrow?

Steve Webb: I welcome the hon. Lady’s endorsement of credit unions, and I am pleased to say that, last week, the House of Lords approved the legislative reform order that will pave the way for credit unions to expand. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) asked about the difference between the USA and the UK. One of those differences is that many of our credit unions are small and have not been able to stand on their own two feet and become viable. We are determined to enable them to become viable so that they can perform the functions that she set out.

Work Capability Assessment

Mary Glindon: When he plans to bring forward new work capability assessment descriptors for mental health and fluctuating conditions.

Chris Grayling: We have received suggested descriptors for mental, cognitive and intellectual function from Professor Harrington’s working group. Given that they represent a substantial departure from how the current assessment works, we are considering what impact they will have and will come forward with proposals soon. We have not yet received any recommendations from Professor Harrington’s separate working group on fluctuating conditions.

Mary Glindon: In July the Minister received recommendations for changes to the mental health descriptors from Mind, the National Autistic Society and Mencap, and although he says that the Government will be bringing forward proposals shortly, will he specify when those changes will be implemented?

Chris Grayling: The challenge facing us is that the recommendations will involve a complete change of the work capability assessment, not simply for mental health issues, but for physical issues, and is therefore a multi-year project. We are considering whether we can incorporate elements of the recommendations into the current approach much more quickly. I am concerned to ensure that we do the right thing by people with mental health conditions, and I want to ensure that we take any sensible steps as quickly as possible.

Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our approach should focus on what can be done to help people back into the world of work and on helping them with what they can do, rather than on any scintilla of a suggestion of people being punished for what they cannot do?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a crucial point. We are not trying to do people down, but looking to help those with the potential to make more of their lives to do so. The assessment is all about working out who has the potential to get back into the workplace, and through the Work programme, we can deliver the specialist support that they need to do so.

Meg Hillier: This morning I met members of Headway East London concerned about the impact of this situation on people who are looking for work but feel that they
	are being penalised when they find it and then cannot cope with it. They talked about the chaos of the benefits system. When will the Minister be coming forward with these proposals and reassuring my constituents that they will be in a better position?

Chris Grayling: We are taking significant steps to sort out the problems to which the hon. Lady refers. The introduction of the universal credit in 2013 will completely transform how our benefits system works. It will be much easier for people with disabilities to move back into work step by step—initially, perhaps, by doing a few hours’ work and then by entering part-time and then full-time employment. It will transform their prospects.

Jennifer Willott: Given Atos Healthcare’s past performance, no one has faith in the ability of the current work capability assessment or Atos fairly to assess fluctuating conditions in particular. Will the Minister work with Atos to ensure that the new descriptors are implemented as soon as possible and that Atos staff receive additional training to improve their performance and restore the faith of claimants and the general public in the assessment process?

Chris Grayling: I will have to wait and see what the recommendations are, but as a result of Professor Harrington’s first report, it is now decision makers in Jobcentre Plus who take the decision about an individual. I have told charitable groups representing people with a variety of conditions that the door is open to them to brief, train and discuss with those decision makers the issues facing such people so that they are as well informed as possible.

Eilidh Whiteford: Last week I met representatives of the Royal National Institute of Blind People, who expressed concerns about the descriptors attached to vision. Will the Minister meet the RNIB and other representatives of blind and partially sighted people to address those concerns so that we have vision descriptors that are fit for purpose?

Chris Grayling: I have regular meetings with groups representing not just blind people, but those with various disabilities, and I will continue to do so. The object of the exercise is to help those who are blind or visually impaired back into work. Surely it is much better to find them a place in the workplace than leave them on benefits for the rest of their lives.

Unemployment

Bill Esterson: What assessment he has made of the factors underlying recent trends in the level of unemployment.

Iain Duncan Smith: Although unemployment is up by about 79,000 since the election, employment is slightly higher, at 29.1 million, and International Labour Organisation unemployment slightly lower, at 2.56 million, than the Office for Budget Responsibility thought it would be at this point. The total number claiming one of the main out-of-work benefits fell by about 25,000 over the last
	year to August. The number claiming incapacity benefit or lone parent benefits fell by nearly 140,000, while the number claiming jobseeker’s allowance rose by 115,000 over the same period. Jobcentre Plus has taken 1 million new vacancies in the last three months and there are 460,000 unfilled vacancies at the moment, up 1,000 this quarter and 5,000 on the year.

Bill Esterson: The question was about unemployment, which is at its highest since the last Tory Government lost power. We have no growth, and we need it to cut unemployment and the deficit. Will the Secretary of State support measures such as a temporary VAT cut on home improvements, which is supported by 49 business organisations, including the Federation of Master Builders and the Federation of Small Businesses, and would create jobs in small businesses in the construction industry?

Iain Duncan Smith: I felt that I answered the question. The hon. Gentleman might not have liked the answer, but I none the less answered it.
	We do not agree with the Opposition’s suggestion of a VAT cut. It is also worth gently reminding the hon. Gentleman that he is part of a party that in government saw a huge rise in unemployment and stagnation of the economy, so before we get lessons and lectures from the Opposition, it would be nice for them to say, “We’re sorry for the mess we left things in.”

State Pension (Women)

Fiona Bruce: What steps he is taking to help women who are most affected by the state pension age proposals contained in the Pensions Bill.

Andrea Leadsom: What steps he is taking to help women who are most affected by the state pension age proposals contained in the Pensions Bill.

Steve Webb: We have amended the Pensions Bill so that women with the largest delay in receiving their state pension will find this delay reduced by six months.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply, but what support is the Department offering to those who will have to work longer as a result of the revised state pension age timetable?

Steve Webb: Now that we will hopefully have certainty about the dates next week—subject to their lordships’ approval—we will want to ensure that people know exactly when their retirement date is. We will write to 750,000 people shortly, so that they know where they stand, and all the services of Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme will be available to those who become long-term unemployed later in life.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate those on the Front Bench on changing their minds on this issue. A number of female constituents have written to me expressing enormous gratitude for the fact that we have changed
	the position for the better. Does the Minister agree that this shows that we care about women in particular and, even more so, that Labour left us with such a mess that we are having to sort it out now and do things that we are not necessarily happy with?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The change that we made—a commitment to ensuring that the changes are fair as they affect women—cost £1.1 billion. The difference between us and the Opposition is that their policy cost ten times as much and they had no idea where the money would come from.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister knows how important auto-enrolment is to ensuring that future generations retire on a decent pension, but the Government’s Beecroft report on deregulation looms large on the horizon. Can the Minister reassure the House that whatever Beecroft recommends, no business large or small will be allowed to opt out from auto-enrolment?

Steve Webb: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new role in the House. I much enjoyed his attempt to persuade the House last week that £11 billion was not very much if we divided it by 10 and by the national debt. In answer to his question about auto-enrolment, I can assure him that 2012 goes ahead as planned, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box last week.

Harrington Review

Tom Greatrex: What assessment he has made of progress towards implementation of the recommendations of the Harrington review of the work capability assessment.

Chris Grayling: We took steps earlier this year to ensure that all the recommendations in Professor Harrington’s first report were implemented in time for the start of the national migration from incapacity benefit. I expect to receive Professor Harrington’s second report, telling us how well he thinks we are doing on that front, shortly.

Tom Greatrex: Given the Minister’s earlier comments, I am sure that he is well aware of the progressive and incurable nature of Parkinson’s disease. A constituent of mine with Parkinson’s has been called for his third work capability assessment, despite appealing the previous two incorrect decisions by Atos and the decision makers. Will the Minister undertake to meet me and Parkinson’s UK, so that he can understand better how in practice the work capability assessment, rather than helping people who can work, too often hounds those who will not get better?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has to understand that one of the great failings of our welfare state over the past decade has been that we have left people on the sidelines year after year without checking to see what their condition is or what the potential alternatives are. I am very happy to meet Parkinson’s UK and the hon. Gentleman. I well understand the challenges that the
	disease presents for those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from it, but we cannot simply go back to a situation in which we leave people year after year without even checking what their condition is.

Right to Reside Test

Priti Patel: What assessment he has made of the potential effects on the payment of benefits of the reasoned opinion from the European Commission on the UK’s right to reside test.

Henry Smith: What assessment he has made of the potential effects on the payment of benefits of the reasoned opinion from the European Commission on the UK’s right to reside test.

Chris Grayling: We accept our responsibility in supporting EU citizens who work here and pay their tax and national insurance, but it is clearly completely unacceptable that we should be asked to open our welfare system to people who have never worked in or contributed to the United Kingdom and who have no intention of doing so. We are considering all the details of the Commission’s reasoned opinion, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the UK retains control of its welfare policies.

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust remarks. What steps is he taking to ensure that the UK is not burdened further by benefit tourism?

Chris Grayling: The best way for us to get the message across to the Commission about the need for change is to demonstrate that this is not a matter for the UK alone. I am therefore forging partnerships with my counterparts in other member states, most of whom have the same concerns. We have to make the Commission recognise that this kind of land grab of an area that should be a national competence is unacceptable. It has all kinds of political connotations, and the Commission must change its view.

Henry Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his previous answer. Can he tell us what steps his Department will be taking to monitor foreign nationals who are receiving UK benefits?

Chris Grayling: I can indeed. One of the things that surprised me most on taking office was the fact that the previous Administration had made no attempt whatever to identify how many people from overseas were receiving benefits. We are now doing that work. We aim to publish the results in the next few weeks, and we will aim to learn lessons from what we find.

Personal Independence Payments

Simon Hughes: What recent discussions he has had with organisations representing disabled people about the face-to-face assessment process for personal independence payments.

Maria Miller: Officials and I have met a broad range of disability organisations in relation to our proposals for the personal independence payment. We have also set up a dedicated group specifically to involve disabled people and their organisations in the design and operation of the new PIP process.

Simon Hughes: Two organisations representing blind people—Action for Blind People and Blind Aid—are based in my borough. One of the concerns that has come to the fore recently is that people who are registered blind, who are clearly blind and have been so for some time, should not have to present themselves to be checked when being assessed for their disability benefits. Can the Minister confirm that, where there is a clear, settled condition, there will be no need for people to be unsettled by having to prove again what is obvious to everyone?

Maria Miller: Although face-to-face consultations will be an important part of the personal independence payment for most people, I have made it clear throughout all the debates that they might not be appropriate for everyone, especially when there is sufficient evidence on which to make an assessment. It is important, however, to treat everyone as an individual, because there is a coincidence of multiple disability for many individuals.

Unemployment

Ann Coffey: What recent assessment he has made of the level of unemployment.

Chris Grayling: The latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics show 2.6 million unemployed, on the International Labour Organisation measure—a rate of 8.1% of the labour force.

Ann Coffey: The latest unemployment figures show that 35% of all jobseeker’s allowance claimants in Stockport are from the most disadvantaged area in my constituency. Unemployed people from disadvantaged areas are likely to remain unemployed for longer, so what steps will the Minister take to ensure that disadvantage does not become further embedded in our community?

Chris Grayling: The structure of the Work programme will mean that, for the first time, we will be paying a higher rate for the help provided to those who come from more challenged backgrounds, in order to encourage providers to make an investment in helping them. That will be an important part of getting them back into the workplace. Under the previous Government’s schemes, there was one flat rate for everyone, but our pricing structure reflects the real need to focus on people who are struggling in life.

Amber Rudd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways to reduce unemployment is to make sure that people set up new businesses? Does he agree that the new enterprise allowance, which we in Hastings and Rye welcome, should also be directed at both disadvantaged people and young people, to make sure that the widest possible number of people are able to set up in business?

Chris Grayling: I agree, and it is very much my hope that the new enterprise allowance will generate a significant boost to new enterprise, small businesses and self-employment in this country. In the way that it is structured, it is aimed at those who have been out of work for more than six months, so I hope it will deliver exactly what my hon. Friend hopes for, which is to support people who have potential but who face the greatest challenges in getting back into the workplace.

Lilian Greenwood: Young and disabled people are more likely to rely on public transport to get to work, yet the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s policies are leading to cuts in bus services and unaffordable fare rises. How is that helping to get unemployment down?

Chris Grayling: When I listen to Labour Members bemoan the cutbacks, I am always astonished that they seem to fail to understand that it is down to the mismanagement of the previous Government that we are having to take these difficult decisions—and we are having to take many such decisions. They should be looking in the mirror in the morning and saying, “Whose fault is this really?”

Social Fund

Ann McKechin: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the replacement of the social fund.

Steve Webb: In addition to general discussions on welfare reform between Scottish Government Ministers and the Department, both Lord Freud and I have corresponded directly with Scottish Government Ministers about the planned social fund reforms.

Ann McKechin: I am grateful for the lack of information in that response. [Laughter.] The Minister will be aware that there is every possibility that the legislative consent motion relating to the Welfare Reform Bill, which includes the reform of the social fund, will not be granted consent by the Scottish Parliament. Will the Minister tell us what is his plan B to ensure that vulnerable people in communities in Scotland receive the crisis loans that they require?

Steve Webb: Let me point out that the bulk of crisis loans will remain available under a UK-wide scheme. The devolution of the social fund relates principally to community care grants and a small amount of crisis loans. In our view, that money is better handled locally, close to the communities in question, and we hope that the Scottish Parliament will take the opportunity to have the money that is available and to spend it in Scotland, which is what it always tells us it wants.

Jobcentre Plus

Katy Clark: What recent assessment he has made of the capacity of the Jobcentre Plus network to administer the benefits system during periods of rising unemployment.

Chris Grayling: The Department for Work and Pensions reviews work loads and staffing regularly to ensure that there is capacity to pay benefits and help people find work. On average, the DWP aims to clear jobseeker’s allowance claims within 10 days. It is currently clearing them in 9.6 days, nearly five days faster than five years ago.

Katy Clark: I thank the Minister for that answer. Twenty-two jobcentres and 17 benefit processing centres are due to close. While I understand that the Government are saying that they are going to try to avoid compulsory redundancies, there is no doubt that staff will be forced out of their jobs. Overall, the unemployment figures are reaching 3 million. In my constituency, the claimant count went up by 10% in the year to September. Surely we are going to see a worse service provided to claimants. Will the Minister undertake to provide regular performance statistics to this House?

Chris Grayling: What the hon. Lady does not understand is that we inherited a network of half-empty buildings. I am sure she would agree that it makes no sense to fund, for example, three or two jobcentres within a mile of each other in a city centre. Rather than cutting back—the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned bus services—I would like to protect the services that we can possibly protect, and making our network of jobcentres and benefit delivery centres operate more efficiently and effectively seems a very good way of trying to ensure that we protect front-line services.

Housing Benefit

Heidi Alexander: What estimate he has made of the potential number of tenants who could accrue rent arrears as a result of implementation of his proposals to restrict housing benefit for social tenants in accordance with household size.

Steve Webb: We have made no estimates of the number of tenants who would get into rent arrears as a direct result of implementing our proposal, as it is not possible to predict exactly how people will respond to the change or what choices they might make in response to a potential shortfall.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister says he has made no such assessment, but the Housing Futures Network estimates that eight out of 10 tenants will struggle to make up the shortfall in lost benefits as a result of these proposed changes, with a third likely to go into rent arrears. That will increase the level of bad debt of housing providers and is likely to mean less investment in new affordable homes. Is the Minister concerned about that?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing our attention to the Housing Futures Network research. What she did not quote was the fact that a quarter of respondents said that they were likely to downsize, which presumably means making better use of the housing stock, while 29% said that they would be either quite likely or very likely to move into work or
	increase their hours, which is a positive response. There are real issues about rent arrears; we are working closely with social landlords to assist, but there will be positive impacts from these policies, which also need to be borne in mind.

Andrew Bridgen: Hard-working families in my constituency often see families on housing benefit receiving more than they themselves receive as a result of going out to work. Can my hon. Friend confirm that as a result of the new measures it will always pay to work?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have a range of policies to ensure that it pays to work, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's universal credit being central among them. The caps on housing benefit and the limit to the 30th percentile in the private sector are also designed to level the playing field between those in low-paid work and those on benefit.

Employment and Support Allowance

Gemma Doyle: What the average length of time was for an appeal in respect of a decision on a claim for employment and support allowance in the latest period for which figures are available.

Chris Grayling: In the current year, the average actual clearance time between the Department’s receiving an appeal and its being lodged with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service was 35.2 days. That, of course, includes the time allowed for individuals to produce new evidence about their circumstances. The average time taken from receipt of an appeal at HMCTS to the date of the first appeal hearing was 23.2 weeks. That information covers 1 April to 31 August 2011, the latest period for which figures are available.

Gemma Doyle: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Will he take this opportunity to refute press reports that he will cut the ESA of people who appeal against assessment decisions, especially in the light of the information that 40% of cases are being won on appeal?

Chris Grayling: What I expect to see as a result of the changes following Professor Harrington’s review in the summer is a significant reduction in the number of cases that go to appeal when the Department’s initial review and the reconsideration are upheld. In order to ease pressure on individuals, we have tried to ensure that there is a proper reconsideration service in Jobcentre Plus, so that they can produce new evidence at that stage and need not use the Courts Service at all.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Minister look into the delays and difficulties experienced by visually impaired claimants who are being transferred from incapacity benefit to the ESA? I have no time to go into the details of this case today, but after more than four months a constituent of mine is still unable to submit a claim because of a lack of support and assistance, and she is not the only
	person in those circumstances. Will the Minister look into the difficulties experienced by this very vulnerable group?

Chris Grayling: It is difficult for me to comment on an individual case, but we certainly do not want to see people in difficulties. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with details of the case, we will look into it for him.

Child Care Costs

Tony Lloyd: What estimate he has made of the potential effect on the number of women leaving work of his planned reduction in refundable child care costs.

Iain Duncan Smith: We are not planning any reductions in support for child care. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman will have noted, we recently committed ourselves to investing £300 million more in child care support under universal credit, on top of the £2 billion already spent on child care support. As a result of that support, some 80,000 more households will be eligible for child care, which must be welcome.

Tony Lloyd: I am not sure that the Secretary of State’s message has been conveyed to the public. Many working families are very concerned both about the high price of child care and about the fact that it is rising, and believe that they will be worse off as a consequence of the changes that are being made. How does the Secretary of State propose to ensure that his message gets across, to Labour Members as well as those on the Government Benches?

Iain Duncan Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman holds genuine views on these matters. Obviously we must ensure that we listen more to people, and explain to them the changes that universal credit will bring. The end of the 16-hour rule and the provision of child care for those working fewer than 16 hours a week will be of major benefit, particularly to lone parents. Under the present system, some 100,000 people do not take up the child care support element of working tax credit to which they are entitled because they are not aware of it, so this will be a big breakthrough.

Crisis Loans

Philip Davies: What proportion of crisis loans are repaid; and if he will make a statement.

Steve Webb: All crisis loans are repayable, and the vast majority are repaid, albeit sometimes over several years. Of the loans issued in 2003-04, more than 95% have so far been recovered.

Philip Davies: It seems from answers given by the Department that each year only half of what is paid out in crisis loans is repaid. The police have reported to me that they have evidence of fictional crimes that people invent in order to obtain crime numbers enabling them to gain crisis loans. Can the Minister explain
	what is being done to ensure that the amount of money being repaid increases, and to stop the abuse of the system?

Steve Webb: In order to give my hon. Friend a sense of scale, let me tell him that we lent a little over £200 million in crisis loans last year, and less than £500,000 was written off as unrecoverable. As I have said, the vast majority of loans are recovered, but I share my hon. Friend’s concern that the money should be lent correctly. Localising parts of the crisis loan system will lead to much closer local scrutiny of the purposes for which the money is being lent.

Child Poverty

Kerry McCarthy: What assessment he has made of the effect on child poverty of benefit changes in (a) 2011-12 and (b) 2012-13.

Iain Duncan Smith: Treasury projections show that modelled tax and benefit reforms announced since Budget 2010 may result in a small reduction in child poverty in 2011-12 and 2012-13. These include above-indexation increases to the child element of child tax credit by £180 in 2011-12 and £110 in 2012-13.

Kerry McCarthy: I am slightly puzzled by the Secretary of State’s response. I am sure he is aware of the research published last week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicting a huge rise in the number of children living in relative poverty—of perhaps 500,000 more—despite the Government’s introduction of the universal credit. Does he accept that child poverty is predicted to rise under his rule?

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady should not be so surprised given that I responded to the question she asked. The IFS projection deals with the tax and the benefits systems, but there are wider issues; we are addressing the pupil premium and other areas, which we think will also have an effect. The IFS projections are based on the premise that absolutely nothing changes, and I remind the hon. Lady that the last report showed that the previous Government were going to miss their 2010 targets before they left office.

Topical Questions

Sheila Gilmore: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: From today, and following the written ministerial statement laid in the House on Friday, employment and support allowance claimants who are eligible to volunteer for the Work programme will be referred to Work programme information sessions. Claimants in the support group will be able to opt in to the sessions. That will form part of the work-related activity component for those in the work-related activity group—WRAG. This is an important step in giving claimants a taste of the support available through the Work programme.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Secretary of State agree with last week’s comments by the Minister for Housing and Local Government that under-occupiers should not be bullied out of their homes, and will he now withdraw his proposals for social tenants which would result in exactly that?

Iain Duncan Smith: The position of the Housing Minister is correct, and I make it a principle to support him.

Bob Russell: Further to the Atos question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), does the Secretary of State agree that the company is not fit for purpose, that it treats many claimants in an unacceptable way, and that, frankly, it is time that its contract was terminated?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend needs to understand that Atos is simply a subcontractor to the Department for Work and Pensions. It does not take decisions about individuals. It simply operates to a template, which was mostly established under the previous Government. Of course we must be sensitive, but Atos and our other subcontractors are as careful as possible about the job that they do. Ultimately however, it is the Department itself that sets the policy and implements the processes, and that must take responsibility for the outcomes.

Ian Austin: Given the Secretary of State’s complaints about the free movement of European labour and his leadership of the Maastricht rebels in the ’90s, may I ask why he will not be demonstrating some conviction and consistency this evening? Why is he putting his position and his party before his principles, and his career before his country, in the debate on Europe this evening?

Mr Speaker: Order. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman, and that is, indeed, a topical question, but it suffers from the notable disadvantage of bearing absolutely no relation whatsoever to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I will give a seminar to the hon. Gentleman later, further and better to explain the point, but there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to respond to that question.

Naomi Long: Given the relatively small employment market in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State believe, based on his discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers, that enough jobs can be created for those leaving employment for the Work programme financial model to be effective in Northern Ireland?

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Lady rightly says, all these issues are devolved to Northern Ireland. We have regular contact with the Northern Ireland Administration, and my colleague, Lord Freud, has regular meetings with them on behalf of the Department. We all, of course, want to see growth and employment in every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and to see all our welfare-to-work policies, both devolved and otherwise, bear fruit.

Duncan Hames: In the Welfare Reform Bill Committee on 10 May the Minister with responsibility for disabilities, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), assured us that she would not remove mobility benefits from disabled people without additional support being in place. Would she care to update the House on progress in determining the level of support that will be available to disabled people, including care home residents, through personal independence payments?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to do that. As he is aware, we have been examining this issue more broadly and our research is well advanced. The independent review chaired by Lord Low has been examining some of the same issues, and it is sensible to reflect on the outcome of his important work in advance of our final decision. Lord Low is due to report on 3 November and I will announce our final decisions shortly after.

Stephen Hepburn: If Harrington does bring forward improvements to the work capability test, will the Minister give a commitment to review all those past cases seen and commissioned under Atos, where bad mistakes may have been made?

Chris Grayling: Of course, every claimant who goes through the work capability assessment has the right of appeal. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that when Professor Harrington carried out his first assessment last year he said to me clearly that although he had recommended improvements, we could and should go ahead with the national incapacity benefit migration. I have accepted his recommendations.

Priti Patel: Ministers will be aware of the difficulties that young people face in finding employment, and the challenges are naturally greater for those with disabilities. Will the Minister provide an update on Government plans to help young disabled people to get back into work, following the recent Sayce review?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she will doubtless be aware from her own constituency, the aspirations of young disabled people are no different from those of any other people. That is why, through the Work programme, the Work Choice programme and the access to work scheme, we will give young disabled people all the opportunities they need to progress into work.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Secretary of State seemed surprised that we do not share his love of statistics. I wonder whether it was he who briefed the Prime Minister last week, leading to the Prime Minister claiming at Prime Minister’s questions
	“that 500,000 people have jobs who did not have one at the time of the election.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 893.]
	The Prime Minister was not at his most eloquent last week. However, according to official figures, between April to June 2010 and the most recent figures—June to August 2011—employment is up by just 87,000. We do not like the Secretary of State’s statistics when they are wrong. Does this not prove that the Government do not have a plan for tackling unemployment?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady is missing something out. One of the most regular refrains from the Opposition over the past few months has been that, as we have had to make necessary changes in the public sector as a result of the financial mess they left behind, the private sector would not be able to take up the slack. The truth is that although we have had a bad quarter for unemployment, we have seen more than 500,000 extra jobs in the private sector since the election and more jobs created in the private sector over the past year than have been lost in the public sector.

Edward Timpson: Under new housing benefit rules, foster carers who claim housing benefit will be penalised for having bedrooms occupied by foster children because they will be deemed as “under-occupied”. At a time when we need more foster carers, not fewer, what are the Government doing to address that anomaly?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend has a good deal of personal knowledge of this issue. I refer him to the comments made by Lord Freud when it was raised during consideration of the Welfare Reform Bill in the Lords. He observed that this is a serious issue and that he is keen to ensure that we respond appropriately to that important point.

Natascha Engel: A record number of employment and support allowance claimants are wrongly assessed as fit for work. They cannot claim ESA while they await their appeal hearings, yet appeals are taking anything up to 15 months to be heard. What is the Minister doing to make the system better and, more importantly, quicker?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady needs to remember that the system we inherited from the previous Government caused the problems to which she is referring. We made changes after the Harrington review last year that were all in place earlier this summer for the start of the national incapacity benefit migration. We have yet to see the statistical outcome of that, but I am confident that we will see a fall in the number of successful appeals as a result of our decision to implement the Harrington recommendations in full.

Brandon Lewis: For auto-enrolment to have the maximum impact, it is important that seasonal short-term employees have an equal opportunity to be part of it. Will the Minister outline what incentives the Government are putting in place to encourage take-up by short-term and seasonal employees?

Steve Webb: We must strike the right balance in respect of those who work for an employer for a very short period, in order to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.
	Those who are with a firm for more than three months will be within the scope of auto-enrolment, and those who work for a shorter period will still be free to opt in and trigger a contribution from their firm.

Jessica Morden: Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the assessment for the personal independence payment will be fit for purpose and will not repeat the experiences of the work capability assessment?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will be aware that last May we published the assessment criteria, that we have been testing those through the summer with 900 disabled people, and that we are working with more than 50 disability organisations. I hope that that assures her that we will ensure that it is very much fit for purpose.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome the Government’s plans to streamline advice and information and advocacy services, with the big possibility of a much enhanced citizens advice service. Will the Minister assure me that benefits advice and advocacy will be very much at the heart of the new service?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes, I can.

Frank Roy: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is proving impossible for MPs to make telephone inquiries to Work programme providers, outsource providers and work capability assessment providers?

Chris Grayling: We are extremely keen to see close relationships between local Members of Parliament and Work programme providers. If there is any issue in making that happen, we will happily act as middlemen to make sure the doors are opened.

Ann McKechin: As the Minister will be aware, there are approximately 2,000 local government employees in Scotland who administer housing benefit. He said in a recent parliamentary answer to me that those people are in his thinking in relation to the introduction of universal credit. Can he give any reassurance to the House that those people’s jobs will be protected and will be considered as part of the new system?

Iain Duncan Smith: We have said all along that, when it comes to administering universal credit, all those who are responsible for administering various parts of it now will have an equal opportunity to show that they are the most efficient and most effective.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Government for amending the state pension age for one category of women. May I press the Government and the Minister on the transitional arrangements for those women who will not have a reprieve, because presumably the unemployment benefit will not be as high as the state pension to which they would have been entitled?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right that there will still be people who face a significant increase in their state pension age. Working-age benefits will be available, including jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance. Some such women will also have access to occupational pensions and other forms of income and we will support those who seek to carry on working up to their new state pension age.

Catherine McKinnell: On Saturday, I joined more than 1,000 people in Newcastle for one of the many Hardest Hit campaign rallies across the country, in which people expressed anxiety about cuts to local care and support services, jobs and essential benefits for some of the most vulnerable in society. Given that disabled people are already twice as likely to live in poverty, what does the Minister have to say in response to their concerns?

Maria Miller: I regularly meet all the major organisations that are involved in the march. I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are doing work in the Department for Work and Pensions and through the Department of Health, with an extra £7.2 billion going on social care, an extra £3 million being put into user-led organisations and £180 million going on disabled facilities grants. Those are all additional areas of expenditure that disabled people should welcome.

Iain Wright: One in five young people in Hartlepool is without employment, education or training. That is the highest proportion anywhere in the country and is the direct result of Government decisions such as the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance and the cancellation of the future jobs fund. Given the astonishing complacency of the Secretary of State’s earlier answers and given that he has not given a fig about young people throughout this Administration, what practical, tangible steps will he put in place so that young people in Hartlepool are not a neglected, forgotten or lost generation?

Iain Duncan Smith: I must say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to many others, that these problems with youth unemployment are deeply regrettable but, most importantly, while we in government look after the economy and want to see greater levels of growth, he, like all his colleagues, needs to take account of the fact
	that we are here because of the mess that his party left the economy in and the debts and the deficit—which we have to get rid of.

Gloria De Piero: A constituent of mine has been taken off disability living allowance and was told in May that his appeal was ready to be heard at a tribunal but that the backlog meant that it could not be heard until April next year. That is an 11-month wait; does the Minister think that is an acceptable length of time?

Maria Miller: I am very happy to discuss an individual case such as that with the hon. Lady if she would like to talk to me at another point.

Pat McFadden: Has the Minister with responsibility for disabled people received any reports of Remploy factories having to turn away work? If so, does she agree that, at a time when there is criticism of the financial performance of some of those factories, that would be perverse given that we want those factories to be taking on as much work as possible?

Maria Miller: The Government are absolutely committed to Remploy and are continuing to fund the modernisation plan. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at the future of Remploy—not just the factories, but employment services. If he has particular examples of current practice that he is concerned about, I would be delighted to talk to him about that. I am not aware of any such business being turned away.

Mary Glindon: Does the Minister consider £22.60 enough to live on as a personal allowance to provide clothing, toiletries, travel and socialising? If not, why does the Minister expect my disabled constituents from the Percy Hedley Foundation who took part in the Hardest Hit campaign to—

Mr Speaker: Order. Thank you for the question, but we must move on.

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady may be referring to disability living allowance. That is available for part of the costs that disabled people incur. There are many other ways that the Government support disabled people.

European Council

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on recent developments in Libya and yesterday’s European Council.
	Yesterday in Libya, after 42 years of tyranny and seven months of fighting, the national transitional council declared the formal liberation of their country. Everyone will have been moved by the pictures of joy and relief that we saw on our television screens last night. From Tripoli to Benghazi, from Misrata to Zawiyah, Libyans now dare to look forward, safe in the knowledge that the Gaddafi era is truly behind them.
	This was Libya’s revolution, but Britain can be proud of the role that we played. Our aim throughout has been to fulfil the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, to protect civilians, and to give the Libyan people the chance to determine their own political future. With the death of Gaddafi, they now really do have that chance. The whole House will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces for the role that they have played—over 3,000 missions flown and some 2,000 strike sorties, one fifth of the total strike sorties flown by NATO. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has written this morning, it has been
	“one of the most successful operations NATO has conducted in its 62-year history”.
	I believe it is something the whole country can take pride in.
	The decision to intervene militarily, to place our brave servicemen and women in the line of fire, is never an easy one. We were determined from the outset to conduct this campaign in the right way, and to learn the lessons of recent interventions, so we made sure the House was provided immediately with a summary of the legal advice authorising the action. We held a debate and a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. We made sure that decisions were taken properly throughout the campaign, with the right people present, and in an orderly way. The National Security Council on Libya met 68 times, formulated our policy, and drove forward the military and the diplomatic campaign. We took great care to ensure that targeting decisions minimised the number of civilian casualties. I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for his hard work on this issue.
	It is a mark of the skill of RAF, British Army and other coalition pilots that the number of civilian casualties of the air attacks has been so low. The military mission is now coming to an end, and in the next few days, NATO’s Operation Unified Protector will formally be concluded. It will now be for Libyans to chart their own destiny and this country will stand ready to support them as they do so.
	Many learned commentators have written about the lessons that can be learned from the past seven months. For our part, the Government are conducting a rapid exercise, while memories are still fresh, and we will publish its key findings. For my part, I am wary of drawing some grand, over-arching lesson—still less to claim that Libya offers some new template that we can apply the world over. I believe it has shown the importance of weighing each situation on its merits and thinking
	through carefully any decision to intervene in advance. But I hope it has also shown that this country has learned not only the lessons of Iraq, but the lessons of Bosnia too. When it is necessary, legal and right to act, we should be ready to do so.
	Let me turn to yesterday’s European Council. This Council was about three things: sorting out the problems of the eurozone, promoting growth in the European Union, and ensuring that as the eurozone develops new arrangements for governance, the interests of those outside the eurozone are protected. This latter point touches directly on the debate in the House later today, and I will say a word on this later in my statement. Resolving the problems in the eurozone is the urgent and overriding priority facing not only the eurozone members, but the EU as a whole and indeed the rest of the world economy.
	Britain is playing a positive role proposing the three vital steps needed to deal with the crisis: the establishment of a financial firewall big enough to contain any contagion; the credible recapitalisation of European banks; and a decisive solution to the problems in Greece. We pushed this in the letter we co-ordinated to the G20 and in the video conference between me, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and President Obama last week. We did so again at the European Council this weekend and will continue to do so on Wednesday at an extra European Council meeting.
	Ultimately, however, the way to make the whole of the EU, including the eurozone, work better is to promote open markets, flexible economies and enterprise. That is an agenda that Britain has promoted, under successive Governments and successive Prime Ministers, but it is now an agenda that the European Commission is promoting, too. We have many differences with the European Commission, but the presentation made by the Commission at yesterday’s Council about economic growth was exactly what we have been pushing for, driving home the importance of creating a single market in services, opening up our energy markets and scrapping the rules and bureaucracy that make it take so long to start a new business. Both coalition parties are pushing hard for these objectives.
	This may sound dry, but if we want to get Europe’s economies moving and to succeed in a competitive world, these are the steps that are absolutely necessary. These are arguments that Margaret Thatcher made to drive through the single market in the first place, and which every Prime Minister since has tried to push. If the countries of the EU were as productive as the United States, if we had the same proportion of women participating in our economy, and if we were as fast and flexible at setting up new businesses, we would have the same GDP per capita as the United States. That is an aim we should adopt.
	The remainder of the Council was spent on the safeguards needed to protect the interests of all 27 members of the European Union. The Council agreed that all matters relating to the single market must remain decisions for all 27 member states and that the European Commission must
	“safeguard a level playing field among all Member States including those not participating in the Euro.”
	That leads me directly to the debate we will have in the House later today. Members of my party fought the last election committed to three things: stopping the
	passage of further powers to the EU; instituting a referendum lock to require a referendum, by law, for any such transfer of powers from this House; and bringing back powers from Brussels to Westminster. All three remain party policy. All three, in my view, are in the national interest. In 17 months in government, we have already achieved two of the three. No more powers have gone to Brussels. Indeed, the bail-out power has actually been returned and, of course, the referendum lock is in place. I remain firmly committed to achieving the third: bringing back more powers from Brussels.
	The question tonight is whether to add to that by passing legislation in the next Session of this Parliament to provide for a referendum that would include a question on whether Britain should leave the EU altogether. Let me say why I continue to believe that this approach would not be right, why the timing is wrong and how Britain can now best advance our national interests in Europe.
	First, it is not right because our national interest is to be in the EU, helping to determine the rules governing the single market, our biggest export market, which consumes more than 50% of our exports and drives so much investment in the UK. That is not an abstract, theoretical argument; it matters for millions of jobs and millions of families and businesses in our country. That is why successive Prime Ministers have advocated our membership of the EU.
	Secondly, it is not the right time, at this moment of economic crisis, to launch legislation that includes an in/out referendum. When your neighbour’s house is on fire, your first impulse should be to help put out the flames, not least to stop them reaching your own house. This is not the time to argue about walking away, not just for their sakes, but for ours.
	Thirdly, and crucially, there is a danger that by raising the prospect of a referendum, including an in/out option, we will miss the real opportunity to further our national interest. Fundamental questions are being asked about the future of the eurozone and, therefore, the shape of the EU itself. Opportunities to advance our national interest are clearly becoming apparent. We should focus on how to make the most of this, rather than pursuing a parliamentary process for a multiple-choice referendum. As yesterday’s Council conclusions made clear, changes to the EU treaties need the agreement of all 27 member states. Every country can wield a veto until its needs are met. I share the yearning for fundamental reform and am determined to deliver it.
	To those who support today’s motion but do not actually want to leave the EU, I say this: I respect your views. We disagree not about ends, but about means. I support your aims. Like you, I want to see fundamental reform. Like you, I want to re-fashion our membership of the EU so that it better serves our nation’s interests. The time for reform is coming. That is the prize. Let us not be distracted from seizing it. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. On Libya, I join him in expressing deep and abiding gratitude to members of the British armed forces. Over the past seven months, once again, our servicemen and women have been a
	credit to our nation, exercising our responsibility to the Libyan people and to uphold the will of the United Nations. That is why I have supported the Government in their actions, and I commend the Prime Minister on the role that he has played in taking the right and principled decisions on the issue.
	There are difficult days ahead, and it is for the Libyan people to determine their future, but I agree with the Prime Minister that, alongside the responsibility to protect, which we exercised, is the responsibility to help rebuild—in particular, to help provide the expertise that the new Libya will require.
	Let me now turn to Europe, and here my opening remarks reflect some of the things that the Prime Minister said. We are clear, and have been consistently, that getting out of the European Union is not in our national interest. Cutting ourselves off from our biggest export market makes no sense for Britain, and the overwhelming majority of British businesses, however unhappy they are with aspects of the EU, know that, too.
	What is more, at this moment of all moments, the uncertainty that would ensue from Britain turning inwards over the next two years to debate an in/out referendum is something our country cannot afford. The best answer to the concerns of the British people about the European Union is to reform the way it works, not to leave it. We should make the completion of the single market, common agricultural policy reform, budget reform and reform of state aids the issue. That is why we will vote against the motion tonight.
	This is the context for the European Council that the Prime Minister went to this weekend: growth stalled in Britain since the autumn; growth now stalling in Europe; unemployment rising; and the threat of a new banking crisis. That is why yesterday’s summit was so important.
	I listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s statement, and it sounds like he now believes that Britain should play an active role in solving this crisis, but the truth is that month after month the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have chosen to grandstand on the sidelines, not to help sort out the issue. The Chancellor even refused to go to the initial meetings that he was invited to on the issue. They have shown no will to try to find the solutions.
	Let me ask where the Prime Minister now stands. On banking, does he believe that the amount of recapitalisation being discussed is sufficient to ensure financial stability throughout the European banking system, particularly in the light of the International Monetary Fund’s larger estimates of capital required? On Greece, does he believe that the lessons of previously announced Greek bail-outs are being learned and will provide a genuinely sustainable solution? On growth, does he now understand that Europe will not get to grips with its debt problems until it get to grips with a crisis of growth and the immediate lack of demand in the European economy?
	I suppose we should be pleased that the Government have moved from the Chancellor being empty-chaired at the meetings to the Prime Minister at least wanting to get into them, but he will have to do better than yesterday, because he was surprisingly coy about his one real achievement at the summit. In a few short hours, he managed to write the euro version of “How to Lose Friends & Alienate People”. He went into the summit lecturing the Germans; he came out of it being shouted
	at by the French. Apparently, President Sarkozy, until recently his new best friend, had had enough of the posturing, the hectoring, the know-it-all ways. Mr President, yesterday you spoke not just for France but for Britain as well.
	The Prime Minister was in Brussels, but his mind was elsewhere. The Tory party on Europe is suffering another nervous breakdown, with a Prime Minister making frantic phone calls home, Parliamentary Private Secretaries threatening to resign, and it is not just the Stone Roses on a comeback tour, because the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is back among us, touring the television studios.
	All the Prime Minister’s present difficulties are of his own making. What did he say in 2006? He said that instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we were banging on about Europe. However, he spent the last five years telling his Back Benchers that he may not be banging on about Europe but that, deep down, he is really one of them. He was warned that he might start by dabbling with Euroscepticism, but that it was a slippery slope. That is exactly what happened.
	Does the Prime Minister regret getting out of the European People’s Party in favour of the right-wing fringe—[ Interruption. ] He says no, but I do not know whether he was aware that there was a dinner for EPP leaders on Saturday night. The German Chancellor was there, the French President was there, and the President of the Commission was there—mainstream centre right Europe—but the Prime Minister was not invited. He is the person who kept telling us that he was a Eurosceptic, who at the election promised renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s membership of the EU. His party is paying the price because it believed what he told them. The country is paying the price because we are losing influence.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister was at it again, and we heard it again today. He is locked in a row with his Back Benchers, and what do we see? We see the resurrection of the old classic to get out of the social chapter, and withdraw employment rights. The coalition agreement is clear. That option is off the table. The Deputy Prime Minister is nodding from a sedentary position. That option—the third option in the Prime Minister’s statement—is off the table, and the Foreign Secretary confirmed that again this morning. Let the Prime Minister answer this question. At the December summit, what position will he take? Will he be for renegotiation or against? The coalition agreement says that that option is off the table. He said in his statement that it is on the table. The position is totally unclear.
	This goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s ability to fight in Europe on behalf of this country. Like his predecessors, he is caught between the party interest and the national interest. We see a rerun of the old movie—an out-of-touch Tory party tearing itself apart over Europe—and all the time the British people are left to worry about their jobs and livelihoods. The Prime Minister should stop negotiating with his Back Benchers, and start fighting for the national interest.

David Cameron: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words on Libya. I agree that, as well as the responsibility to protect, we have a responsibility to help rebuild, and we will certainly do that.
	What he said about Europe started well with praise for the importance of completing the single market, something he is in favour of and I am in favour of. He did not tell us about all his views on Europe. Yesterday, he was asked repeatedly whether Labour would join the euro, and the answer was instructive. He said:
	“It depends how long I’m prime minister for.”
	I am not sure which prospect is more terrifying.
	The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of not going to meetings in Europe. We have been going to meetings in Europe to get us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour put us into. He asked what we are doing to make sure that bank recapitalisation is credible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spent 10 hours in an ECOFIN meeting on Saturday ensuring that that happened. It would not have done without his intervention.
	On Greece, we certainly want decisive action. Let me be clear about that. The right hon. Gentleman then said an extraordinary thing about the French President—that he thought the French President spoke for Britain—[ Interruption. ] That is what he said. It is difficult from opposition to sell out your country, but he has just done it.
	I struggled to look for a question to answer—there were not very many. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of global leadership. Let me just remind him that one of the absolute keys is going to be the role of the IMF. Let us remember that he led his Back Benchers and all his Front Benchers through the Division Lobby to vote against the IMF deal that his own former Prime Minister had negotiated in London. That was a complete absence of leadership, like so much we see from the right hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them, but I remind the House that we have a very heavily subscribed debate to take place afterwards. Therefore, brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is of the essence.

Malcolm Rifkind: I agree with the Prime Minister’s view on the debate this afternoon. However, has he had drawn to his attention the terms of the third option in the motion, which is to
	“re-negotiate…membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation”?
	Is that not purely the situation of Norway and Switzerland, is that not incompatible with membership of the European Union, and should not anyone who is interested in renegotiation that will enable us to stay within the Union oppose this motion?

David Cameron: I think the vital interest for the UK is belonging to the single market—not just being able to trade in that single market but having a seat at the table where you can negotiate the rules of that single market, which of course countries like Norway are not able to do. One of the other problems with the motion—I completely understand the frustrations that many of my colleagues have about Europe—is that if you have a three-way choice, you could find that 34% of the country
	voting to get out of the European Union would be enough to deliver that or, indeed, that 34% voting for the status quo, which many of think is unacceptable, would be enough.
	[Interruption.]
	I think we have tried the alternative vote, and a pretty clear decision was made.

Mike Gapes: How would the Prime Minister characterise his relations with President Sarkozy?

David Cameron: If you have a good relationship with someone, you can have frank discussions with them. I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened at the European Council yesterday. On the issue of Libya, Britain and France have worked together probably more closely than we have worked together at any time in the last 40 years, and on defence co-operation, we will continue to do that. I do not for one minute resile from the need sometimes to speak clearly and frankly on behalf of Britain and to stand up for the British national interest. It is in our national interest that the eurozone deals with its problems, and it is right that we make that clear.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for the determination and leadership that he showed in relation to Libya. He will understand that his views and mine on Europe are hardly identical, but, at the very least, can we not agree that in opposing President Sarkozy abroad, and in opposing the motion to be discussed here at home, he is clearly acting in the national interest?

David Cameron: I am very grateful for that compliment. The fact is that my right hon. and learned Friend is right to make the point. This is a coalition. There is not complete agreement on European policy between the parties of the coalition, but the coalition came together in the national interest and is acting in the national interest, and I think it is right to oppose this motion tonight, partly on the grounds that he puts forward.

Gisela Stuart: It is a shame that the Prime Minister spent only 10 minutes on Libya, the European Council and the motion. On reflection, I hope that he will think that he should have paid more attention to the European Council.
	US Secretary Geithner said that even if all Greece’s debts were repaid, we would still have the same problem. Could the Prime Minister tell the House how he thinks that Greece will regain competitiveness?

David Cameron: I have probably made more statements on European Councils over the last 16 months than many Prime Ministers, and I have always committed to come back and report to the House.
	The point that the hon. Lady makes is absolutely right. Greece is just the most glaring problem that the eurozone has to deal with. As I have said, that has to be dealt with decisively. It needs to be backed by a firewall, and it needs to be backed by the recapitalisation of banks. But the fundamental problem of the eurozone is
	the issue of competitiveness and the very large current imbalances that are building up in some of the member states, particularly those in the south. As a result, what needs to happen above all, as I said in my statement, is an advance in competitiveness, in trade, and in completing the single market, which will help all those economies in the longer term.

William Cash: The Prime Minister has made it clear that he advocates fiscal union within the eurozone. Can he explain to the House how it is that fiscal union of that kind is not a fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union, bearing in mind that it is established that the constitutional position is clear that where there is fundamental change, there must be a referendum? How can he square that circle?

David Cameron: Let me be clear with my hon. Friend. I think that fundamental changes are coming in Europe; they are clearly coming in the eurozone. That may lead to pressures, as we saw over the weekend, for treaty change. That will present opportunities for Britain and we should respond to those opportunities. The question for the House tonight is whether it is right to go off down the path of having a referendum that includes an in/out option, just when there are big opportunities as the eurozone and the EU are changing.

Keith Vaz: I join others in congratulating the Prime Minister on his stance on Libya, but remind him that there are other countries, such as Yemen, that need to be focused on. The Lisbon agenda set out the benchmarks for economic growth, which were replaced by the 2020 strategy. Is the Prime Minister confident that, despite the eurozone crisis, those targets will be achieved?

David Cameron: First, the right hon. Gentleman is right on Yemen. As he knows, the National Security Council is spending an increasing amount of time on examining how we can best help that country not only to achieve a transition to greater democracy and freedom, but to tackle the security concerns that we have about it. He is right that we have had the Lisbon process and the 2020 process. The problem is that although this agenda gets pushed forward, in too many cases the targets and measures are not met. After 16 or 17 months of going to Council meetings, I am seeing a change of heart in the European Commission, not least because everyone recognises that the priority in Europe is now growth. The Commission has to stop adding expensive regulations to business and start deregulating, which is exactly the agenda that we are putting forward.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Prime Minister agree that not only in Libya, but in Tunisia and Egypt there is an opportunity for reconstruction and a transition to democracy? To what extent will that be dealt with on a bilateral basis or in conjunction with our partners through the European External Action Service?

David Cameron: The first thing that we have done is to help to change the European neighbourhood policy to ensure that it is much more engaged with Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and to put in much more conditionality so that there is progress towards rights and democracy
	in the countries that we are helping. In addition, we have a significant bilateral programme. It is essential to help those countries develop the building blocks of democracy, such as political parties, and understand the importance of civic society. The Department for International Development and others can help with that.

Nigel Dodds: I join others in paying tribute to the bravery of our servicemen and women over Libya and to the work of NATO. I particularly commend the Prime Minister for his leadership on Libya. I am afraid that on Europe, the same cannot be said. The people of Britain will today be asking why he has he decided to firmly set his face not only against his own Back Benchers, but against the settled will of the British people for a referendum on Europe.

David Cameron: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Libya. As I have said, the country can be proud of what our armed service personnel have done. On Europe, I am clear about what Parliament should do about a referendum. We do not come to this place to give away powers that belong to the people, not to us. It is wrong that we did not have a referendum on Maastricht, Lisbon and those other treaties. My clear view is that it is when this Parliament proposes to give up powers that there should be a referendum. That is the guarantee that we have written into the law of the land.

Philip Davies: As global traders, our future prosperity lies in improved trade with China, India, South America and emerging economies in Africa, and not in being part of the backward-facing, inward-facing protection racket that is the European Union, which is propping up inefficient businesses and French farmers. The Prime Minister’s objection to tonight’s motion seems to be about timing. Will he give us a timetable for getting powers back from the European Union?

David Cameron: First, where I have some disagreement with my hon. Friend is that, although we of course want to export more to China, India, Brazil, Russia and Turkey—the fast-growing countries of the future—we have to recognise that today, 50% of our trade is with European Union countries. It is therefore in our interest not only to keep those markets open and have a say about their regulation, but to further open them up. That is what we should be pushing for and are pushing for in the European Union. As I say, there is a case for a referendum if ever this Parliament proposes to give up more powers. Otherwise, it is clear what the country wants us to do: it wants us to stay in the European Union, but to retrieve some powers and ensure that we have a better relationship with Europe. That is the commitment that we have made.

Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister must recognise that whether we are talking about Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal or Ireland, only growth will make a real difference to the financial crisis. Why did he not advocate policies of growth at the heart of these debates and, in that way, give a lead to the British people about why Europe is so important?

David Cameron: We have been doing exactly that, but one reason some of those countries have got into difficulties is not just the shortage of growth and competitiveness, though that has been key, but the fact that they have built up very large budget deficits. That is the lesson right across Europe—you have to make sure that you cut your cloth according to what you can afford. That is a lesson that we are tragically having to learn in this country, too.

Charlie Elphicke: My constituents in Dover were very pleased and heartened to see the Prime Minister standing up to the French.
	When it comes to the national interest, is not a key point that we need action on budgets and action on getting us out of the bail-out fund, not action selling us down the river, joining up with the euro or selling down the £7 billion rebate that we used to have?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is about what the British people want us to do specifically with respect to Europe. The biggest danger, they sense, is getting drawn into further bail-outs. That is why, in the treaty change that has already come forward, that was the price that we exacted—to get out of the EU bail-out fund by 2013. We have returned that power to the UK. We should also be taking action on the European budget, and we have secured agreement with some of the large countries in Europe on a real-terms freeze this year. Those priorities, plus the referendum lock, are what this Government have already been able to deliver.

Denis MacShane: The Prime Minister prayed in aid Margaret Thatcher, but she put her money where her mouth was in the sense that the UK contribution to the European Community went up from £656 million in 1984 to £2.54 billion in 1990—a fourfold increase. Then, it was to help Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Does the Prime Minister plan to emulate her to help Poland, Latvia and our poorer friends in the new Europe?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman reminds us that Margaret Thatcher did indeed put her money where her mouth was. The only trouble was the next Government came along and gave it away when they gave up the rebate for absolutely nothing in return.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my right hon. Friend speculate on what the cost would have been to the taxpayer if he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had not negotiated to get Britain out of the bail-out mechanism?

David Cameron: The point about the bail-out mechanism is that we were left exposed by the last Government because of the existence of the European financial stabilisation mechanism. Although we are still at risk between now and 2013, what we have secured is that we have ended that from 2013. That is an achievement. We also stayed out of the second Greek bail-out, and that was an achievement. Those things have saved real money, and it is really important for people to understand that the Government have been focused on delivering something really concrete and important for the British people at this time.

Gerald Kaufman: As a Member who voted for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1973, and who as shadow Foreign Secretary refused to meet Gaddafi when he invited me to go to Libya to collect financial compensation—blood money—for the family of WPC Fletcher, may I state my disgust and revulsion at the murder, and the nature of the killing, of Gaddafi? May I ask the Prime Minister to emphasise to the national transitional council that the future for democracy in Libya lies in reconciliation, not revenge?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I can announce to the House that Chairman Jalil, leader of the national transitional council, has announced today that there will be an inquiry into the circumstances of Colonel Gaddafi’s death. Clearly, we wanted him to face justice. That is what should have happened, and it is important that that inquiry goes ahead. However, I do not stand back for one second from what I said in my statement—that because the Gaddafi era is over and he is gone, the Libyan people, who genuinely feared that as long as there was a prospect of his coming back there was a difficulty in building their future, can now get on with that future.

Jo Swinson: I greatly welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on Libya. Its liberation is a success not only for the Libyan people but for proving that the international community can act together to implement the responsibility to protect. However, does he agree that we must also exercise caution? Intervention under R2P must be used sparingly and only in cases that meet all the relevant criteria, such as there being a serious threat to human rights, the response being proportional and there being clear support for action internationally, regionally and within the country.

David Cameron: I very much agree with how my hon. Friend puts her question, but I would add something important to that: we should intervene only if we believe we are capable of doing so and of bringing about the effect that we need. There is a very important issue there. It is about seeing not only what is legal and necessary, but what we can do.

Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister must know of the growing division between the public and politicians. Does he have no concern at all about what will happen at 10 o’clock tonight, when all three party leaders will whip their Back Benchers in a Division on a motion that is not binding, and that seeks a referendum and future legislation in—probably—2013? Does that mean that once again, the public will say, “Seventy-five per cent. of us would like a referendum at some stage. This Parliament is not listening”?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady asks a very important question, so let me try and answer it. I absolutely believe it is right to have public petitions in the way that we now do, and that it is right to give time to Back-Bench motions—this Government have brought that reform about. However, the issue of Europe is not a side issue, but an important one, and it is important that political parties and Governments make their views on
	it known. I do not accept the idea that somehow we can have a vote on something as important as this on a Thursday and hope that it will go unnoticed. I believe in the importance of Parliament, but I cannot believe in a sovereign Parliament on the one hand and on the other say that some of its votes and decisions do not matter. I simply do not think that that is consistent.

Mark Reckless: The Prime Minister tells The Daily Telegraph today that we should use any treaty change to shore up the euro to get powers over employment and social policy back, yet on 25 March, he agreed to precisely such a treaty change, but did not ask for anything in return.

David Cameron: I have to take issue with my hon. Friend. The very limited treaty change that is about to be debated in, and hopefully passed by, the House of Commons, gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that the previous Government got us into. I thought, and I still think as Prime Minister, that that was the single most important price that we could exact for that treaty change—that was the biggest concern of the British public. The point I made yesterday and that I will make again today is that I believe that huge changes will take place in the EU and the eurozone. That will give us opportunities to maximise the national interest, which is what we should be talking about and debating in the Conservative party, the coalition and the House of Commons as a whole. We will not further that by having a referendum that includes an in/out option. As I have said, that would be like walking away from a burning house. We should deal with that first, then talk about the future.

Hywel Williams: What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the consequences of the eurozone crisis on UK regional export-led economic growth?

David Cameron: As I said yesterday, the eurozone crisis has clearly had a chilling effect, not only on eurozone economies, but on our economy, the American economy and economies elsewhere in the world. The eurozone is a huge market for the world’s goods, and clearly there has been a slow-down, partly because of the lack of confidence in the eurozone. We must also be clear that a break-up of the eurozone would have severe consequences for neighbouring countries and banks. That is why it is very important that we work with eurozone partners to try to sort this issue out.

Bernard Jenkin: May I join others in commending my right hon. Friend for his leadership on Libya, for which he deserves considerable credit? May I also thank him for the constructive tone that he is adopting towards those of us who will support today’s motion? So many parties have again and again promised a referendum, and the British people clearly want a say over our future relationship with the European Union. Does he understand our anxiety that it is ironic that the House of Commons is likely to vote heavily against what the British people want?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about Libya and my tone, which I shall try to keep constructive throughout. I completely
	understand people’s frustrations: they were promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but they did not get it because the treaty was put in place by the previous Government, which meant that it was not then possible to hold the referendum. However, the answer to the frustration in the country over not having a referendum on the last thing is not to offer one simply on the next idea. The most important thing is to deliver what people want, which is to ensure that we get the best out of the EU and that, where there are opportunities as Europe changes, we take those opportunities. That should be the focus in this Parliament and beyond.

Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister rightly said that the 27 nation states will make any decision on the single market. He has not told the House that the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has been elected president of the 17 nation states within the eurozone, with France on one shoulder and Germany on the other. The President has said that he will inform the British Government prior to any summit meetings and inform them of the results. Does the Prime Minister think that to be “informed” is the same as to be “consulted”?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: as the eurozone comes together and the governance arrangements change, it is important that those countries that are not in the eurozone—and, in our case, do not want to join—have their interests protected. That is why, in the Council conclusions, I secured specific language about ensuring a level playing field and that countries outside the eurozone are protected. This is a journey. The eurozone is going on one journey, where it sees closer collaboration and co-operation, but I believe that countries outside the eurozone will be looking for further protections to ensure that some of our vital national interests—things such as financial services—are properly protected and not put at risk by what is happening in the eurozone.

Mark Lancaster: History tells us that following military victory, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have just 100 golden days to deliver stabilisation before the joy of victory turns to despair among the local population. The clock is now ticking, so will the Prime Minister say a few words about how we will deliver this stabilisation?

David Cameron: We worked closely with others on a stabilisation and reconstruction plan for Libya. A lot of work went into that. I am optimistic because we have seen how the national transitional council is genuinely national and bringing the country together, not wanting a division between Benghazi and Tripoli. It is transitional, and the clock is now ticking for it to set up a genuine transitional Government within 30 days. Everything that I have seen of the Libyan leadership shows that it wants to get on with rebuilding its country, and because of its oil wealth and the size of its sovereign wealth fund, it has the means by which to do it.

Fiona Mactaggart: In the Prime Minister’s statement, he suggested that the EU economies could be as productive as the US economy if we had the same proportion of women in the work force. However, with unemployment among women in the UK higher than at
	any point since 1988, will he tell us three things that he has done to increase the proportion of women in the work place?

David Cameron: We have increased the hours available for free nursery care for three, four and two-year-olds. That is what we have done.

Nadhim Zahawi: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the President of Switzerland and the Prime Minister of Norway were at the table arguing with the French? I suspect that the answer is no because their relationship is different from ours. [Hon. Members: “They are not in the EU.”] That is absolutely right. They are not in the EU, which is why amendment C to the motion is completely the wrong option for our country to pursue.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to ask clearly, “What is in the UK national interest?” At the heart of our national interest, when it comes to the EU, is not only access to that single market but the need to ensure that we are sitting around the table of the single market determining the rules that our exporters have to follow. That is key to our national interest, and we must not lose that.

Mark Durkan: Which situation does the Prime Minister hope that we will arrive at first: the eurozone passing a brink without teetering on it, or his Eurosceptics passing a top without going over it?

David Cameron: That one obviously took a long time to construct. I believe that the eurozone countries are coming together and seeing the need for a big and bold solution. That needs to happen. It will not solve the problem—because there are still major stresses and strains within the eurozone that need to be dealt with in the long term—but I think that it will happen this week. It is up to the House of Commons how it votes tonight, but I am clear that it is in our interest to be in the EU but seeking our national advantage and national interest at all times.

Mark Pritchard: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership on Libya? Returning to fiscal union, may I ask him what part of fiscal union he believes could trigger the European Union Act 2011?

David Cameron: The key point about the European Union Act 2011 and the referendum lock that we put in place is that any passage of powers from Britain to Brussels results in a referendum. That is the key thing that we have delivered, which means that never again can we have a situation where, as with Maastricht or Lisbon, a treaty is passed that transfers powers from this House to somewhere else without the British people being asked first. I sometimes think that we have lost the ability to make clear what a significant change that is. That is the key thing that the referendum lock delivers, and I think everyone on this side of the House can be very proud of it.

Wayne David: Following on from the last question, just a few months ago this House spent 42 and a half hours debating the European
	Union Bill, the purpose of which is to allow for referendums on the EU. Is there any chance of seeing a referendum in the near future on the EU at all?

David Cameron: The point is that if a Government propose to pass powers from this House to Brussels, they should ask the British people first. That is the simple principle that we have put into law. It is important that we try to establish clear rules for the use of referendums in a parliamentary democracy, and I absolutely believe that rule 1, line 1 is: “If you’re giving up powers that belong to the British people, you should ask them first.”

Richard Harrington: I commend the Prime Minister on his statement, not least because it will reassure the thousands of my constituents who work for companies whose European headquarters are based in Watford. Can he reassure me that the things that my constituents do not like about Europe—for example, bureaucracy, reckless profligacy, gross overspending and too much regulation—will be dealt with to the best of his ability in the course of this Government?

David Cameron: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. If he looks at what we have achieved in a relatively short time—getting out of the bail-outs, getting agreement among the big countries for a freeze in the European budget this year and getting the European Commission to focus on deregulation rather than regulation—he will see that they are all important. I agree with his first point. A lot of companies come and invest in Britain not just because of our economic strengths, our flexible labour markets and all the rest of it, but because of access to the world’s biggest single market, which is important for investment into Britain by American, Japanese and other firms, creating the jobs and wealth that we need.

Michael Connarty: With some financial analysts saying that banks holding sovereign debt might have to take a 25% to 60% write-down on that, can the Prime Minister elucidate for the benefit of the House what he means by a “financial firewall big enough to contain any contagion”, and say whether he thinks that the IMF needs to be involved and that the problem cannot be solved in Europe?

David Cameron: There are two issues if we are going to see a decisive resolution of the Greek situation. Obviously we need a recapitalisation of Europe’s banks, so that they have sufficient capital to withstand the losses that would otherwise affect them. Credible stress tests are crucial to that: there has been round after round of stress tests in Europe, but they have not been robust and credible enough. I believe that that has now been secured, not least because of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s work in the ECOFIN meeting. The second thing we need—the firewall; what I called the “big bazooka”, which the shadow Chancellor referred to the other day—is to ensure that we have a mechanism big enough to help to stop contagion to other countries. There will be discussions in the eurozone and outside it about how big that needs to be, but the answer is: bigger than is currently proposed, and they need to keep working on it.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome the possibility that treaty changes will be needed in the next few months. Will the Prime Minister assure me and businesses the length and breadth of this country that he will use that opportunity to get rid of ridiculous regulations and laws that are impeding growth and job creation in our country?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend’s approach. We should use these opportunities as the European Union changes and the eurozone changes to maximise Britain’s national advantage. We have to be clear: we do not yet know how much of a treaty change will be proposed by the Germans and others, or how extensive it will be. We shall have to look carefully at that to see what is right for Britain in response. However, I should say to my hon. Friend that, so far in this Government, one treaty change has been proposed and we exacted an important price, which was to get us out of the bail-out funds from 2013, which was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom.

Jim Cunningham: Is not the tragedy about the Prime Minister the fact that, as Leader of the Opposition, he totally underestimated the world crisis? As a result, he has had to grow up very fast in regard to European politics. What is his next alibi going to be in regard to the postponement of a referendum? I am sure that there is going to be one.

David Cameron: I have not for one minute underestimated the scale of the crisis that we face in Europe and across the world economy. Sadly, that crisis has been made worse by the vast overspending that took place under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Tony Baldry: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the last general election, the Conservative manifesto committed us to seeking to return powers from Europe on economic and social policy, but that nowhere did it contain a commitment to seek an in/out referendum or to seek to renegotiate our terms of membership of the European Union?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We did have a commitment to seek the return of important powers from the European Union, such as the social and employment legislation. Obviously, we are in a coalition, but as Conservative leader, I remain committed to achieving that, because it is in the British national interest to do so. My hon. Friend makes the important point, however, that it was not part of our manifesto or our policy to seek a referendum that included an in/out option. I completely respect the fact that there are Members, not only on this side of the House but on the Labour side as well, who have long wanted an in/out referendum, not least because some of them would like us to get out of the European Union altogether. But that is not our policy, and that is the reason we having the debate on this on a Monday, on a proper motion, in the proper way. This is not some side issue; it is an important issue. As I said before, I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. To me, all decisions of Parliament matter, and the idea that we could sweep this off into a debate on a Thursday and that no one
	would notice is wrong. What Parliament decides matters, and that is why the Government are taking the motion seriously.

Michael McCann: A few weeks ago, I visited the Weir Group in my constituency. Its representatives explained the difficulties that they had had in evacuating British staff from Libya. They also told me of their keen desire to get back to working on vital infrastructure projects there as soon as possible. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he is going to ensure that that can happen?

David Cameron: I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. It is important to his constituents and to that business, and, frankly, it is important for British investment in Libya. I can tell him that Stephen Green, Lord Green, has already held a Libyan investment conference and has plans to travel to Libya. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman contacts that Minister, and I will make sure that that happens so that we can help the Weir Group with the important work that it does.

Robert Halfon: Many of my constituents who have contacted me over the past few days tell me that they lost their trust in politics because the previous Government refused to give them a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. What substantive message can my right hon. Friend give me to take back to those constituents?

David Cameron: I completely understand their concerns, but just because the last Government failed to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty does not mean that we should vote tonight for a referendum on an in/out option that was not in any of our manifestos. The reassurance that I would give to my hon. Friend’s constituents is that the Government are doing all the things that people care about most in Europe, such as constraining the European budget, getting out of the bail-out funds and cutting unnecessary regulation. We are doing all those things, and there will be more to come.

Christopher Leslie: Did I hear the Prime Minister correctly when he said earlier that he now believes that there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? In the light of the Foreign Secretary’s well-rehearsed opposition to that, will he tell us exactly when he changed his mind?

David Cameron: I have always felt that, and our Bill is clear. Under our Bill, Maastricht or any of those treaties would have triggered a referendum. That is the point. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been keeping up. I hope that Labour will commit to that legislation, which will mean that if any Government ever try to give away powers from this House, they will have to ask the British public first.

Harriett Baldwin: Has the Prime Minister noticed that, while this Government have ruled out joining the euro, it is the continued policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition, regardless of who is leading them?

David Cameron: There was an interesting series of interviews with the Leader of the Opposition over the weekend. As well as saying that if he were Prime Minister for long enough, he would like to get us into the euro, he responded to being asked whether he thought that Brussels had too much power by saying:
	“No, I don’t think Brussels has got too much power”.
	That is the official position of the Labour party: wrong about the euro, wrong about Brussels, wrong about Britain. Wrong about everything!

Naomi Long: I share the Prime Minister’s optimism at the formal liberation of Libya, and I pay tribute to the role our armed forces have played in that process. Is the Prime Minister as concerned as I am, however, at the allegation of the summary execution of any human being—even of a violent tyrant such as Gaddafi? Does he share my view that there is a need urgently to re-establish the rule of law and proper democracy in that country?

David Cameron: I think the hon. Lady makes an important point. We all saw those pictures on our televisions and newspapers; they were not pleasant images. I think everyone understands that that is not what should have happened; it should have ended in a trial and in Gaddafi facing justice. As I said earlier, Chairman Jalil has announced that there will be an inquiry, and I think it is important that the Libyans carry it out properly.

Rory Stewart: May I respectfully disagree with the Prime Minister’s idea that there are no lessons from Libya? The lesson from Libya, which could be applied to Europe, is that what matters is not what you ought to do, but how you do it, with whom and when.

David Cameron: I did not say that there are no lessons to learn; I think there are lessons to learn. The Government are carrying out a lessons learned process and will be announcing the key results from it. The point my hon. Friend makes about what you are able to do and how you build alliances to do what you want to do is absolutely vital—and was vital in this case. What I was trying to say—perhaps I did not put it across properly—is that we have to be careful not to say that because Libya was successful in this way, we can read that across to every single other proposed intervention. We cannot do that. As a liberal Conservative, I believe that a bit of scepticism should be brought to these schemes before we embark on them.

Stephen McCabe: For the sake of absolute clarity, is it now this Prime Minister’s position that he could accept substantial German-led changes to the Lisbon treaty without it requiring the referendum he promised the British people?

David Cameron: The key point is this. If there is a proposal for moving powers from this House of Commons to Brussels, there is a referendum guarantee. It is absolutely vital that people understand that; it is the promise that we make. We do not yet know whether treaty change will definitely be proposed; we do not yet know what it will consist of or how big it will be. The pledge I can
	make is that we will use that opportunity to further the national interest—something that did not happen under 13 years of a Labour Government.

Duncan Hames: Closer fiscal policy co-ordination within the eurozone marks two very different degrees of political integration among EU member states. Does the Prime Minister consider that, unlike recent referendums in other EU countries, this development, alongside the passage of the European Union Act 2011, affords the British public a more meaningful veto than before on treaty changes and their impact on our own country?

David Cameron: I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the assurance that people seek—you should not change the rules of the game and you should not give away powers that are not yours to give away. The British people should have a block on that; that is what we have put into place. No Government should rule out for ever putting questions in a referendum—after all, this Government had a referendum on the alternative vote—but that is not what I am saying; I am saying that the bedrock of our views about a referendum in a parliamentary democracy is that you should not give powers away from Parliament without asking the people first.

Jonathan Ashworth: Ahead of tonight’s vote, with a rebellion apparently looming, will the Prime Minister tell us what advice he has taken from the former Prime Minister, John Major? [ Interruption .]

David Cameron: Oh, thank you very much. Well, the hon. Gentleman can have plenty of advice from a former Prime Minister because he used to work for one.
	I do not know whether it appears on his CV; my advice would probably be to leave it off!

Neil Carmichael: With large and significant supply chains stringing across Europe and a market of 500 million people, does the Prime Minister agree that businesses across this country would be really pleased to see us further strengthen the capacity of the single market to deliver more trade?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All these years after the single market was started, we have still not completed the single market in services. In this country, service is one of our strongest industries, and it is actually countries like Germany that have not yet completed that single market. I know that people are bored of hearing the agenda of completing the single market in services, liberalising energy markets, deregulating in Europe, but if we want to raise our growth rate in Europe and raise our game in Europe, this is squarely in our British national interest.

Therese Coffey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his leadership in the Libyan situation, when there were many doubters who have been proved unequivocally wrong. Will he assure me that he will continue to work with the President of France and others on the United Nations Security Council to address the situation in Syria?

David Cameron: I can assure my hon. Friend that, whatever our disagreements on economic policy—and, by and large, we are united on it—the French President and I will work very closely together on foreign affairs and defence issues. I think that there is a real coming together of French and British national interests, but, as I said earlier, when we do sometimes have disagreements we should not be frightened, as good friends, of airing them and discussing these matters.

Point of Order

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Friday I sought to table an amendment to the important motion that is to be discussed—and rightly so—this afternoon. The amendment called for an in/out referendum at the appropriate time, namely following the resolution of the eurozone crisis. However, the Table Office refused to take the amendment from my colleagues and me, although I offered to do it by e-mail or through my researcher, or to have a long conversation on the phone.
	As you know, Mr Speaker—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have got the drift of the point of order.

Greg Mulholland: It is possible, Mr Speaker, for someone to introduce to the Public Bill Office, but not the Table Office—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. We have got the gist of his point of order. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of it.
	The rules governing the form of authorisation required to authenticate matters tabled on behalf of Members when they are not able to be present in person are designed to protect them. If the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding what I have said, believes that they are no longer relevant to modern circumstances, I suggest that he raise the matter with the Procedure Committee. I hope that that is helpful.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[34th Allotted Day]

National Referendum on the European Union

Mr Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected none of the amendments.
	In view of the very large number of Members who wish to speak in the debate, I have imposed a limit of five minutes on each Back-Bench speech.

David Nuttall: I beg to move,
	That this House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom should
	(a) remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
	(b) leave the European Union; or
	(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.
	The motion stands in my name and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
	I must start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for today’s debate. It is an historic debate, and the amount of interest generated in advance of it has surely put beyond any doubt the fact that the public are concerned about this matter. It fully vindicates the establishment of the Committee, and its decision to facilitate the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Clacton (Mr Carswell), for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker), along with many others, for their tireless work and support from the very outset. With the leave of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) will briefly wind up the debate.
	The motion reflects the wishes of the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed petitions calling for a referendum on the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. Opinion polls clearly show that millions of others agree with them: in fact, the vast majority of the British people want a vote in a referendum. The arguments for and against the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union can wait until a future referendum campaign. The motion that is before us today simply paves the way for a referendum to be held on some future, as yet unspecified, date. Therefore, any argument that now is not the right time for a referendum to be held is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Even if the motion is passed today, a referendum is likely to be years away.
	One reason for people’s increasing concern about our membership of the European Union is the growing sense that this country, indeed this Parliament, is becoming ever more impotent as more and more decisions are taken in Brussels and then passed down to the United Kingdom to implement, whether we like it or not.
	I want to mention one very important example of that from my constituency of Bury North. Before the last general election, the Conservatives pledged that if
	we won the election we would keep open the children’s department, including the maternity ward and special care baby unit, at Fairfield hospital in Bury, which was scheduled to close under Labour’s plans. Sadly, despite that pledge, and despite massive local opposition to the closure plans, these vital services are still destined to close, and one of the driving forces behind the closure plans is the effect of the European working time directive. Thousands of my constituents feel completely let down, and even at this late stage I urge the Government to keep that pre-election pledge and to ensure these services are retained at Fairfield hospital.

Denis MacShane: Two weeks ago at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, 23-year-old doctor Lauren Connelly died in a car crash. All her colleagues believe that that was a result of her having worked exhaustingly long hours. We should not mock the working time directive. Although it is sometimes improperly applied in the UK, it is also saving the lives of doctors and patients.

David Nuttall: I believe it is for this Parliament to decide what rules and regulations should be taken up.
	The voters know that the tentacles of the European Union intrude into ever more areas of our national life. Understandably, they are saddened—and, indeed, disillusioned—at being fobbed off, as they see it, by the political elite, who always seem to find a reason to stop them having their say.
	More than a decade ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary coined the phrase, “We want to be in Europe, but not run by Europe.” The sad fact is that since then we have increasingly become run by Europe. I and millions of others in this country want to be in Britain, and run by Britain.
	More than 36 years have passed since anyone had the chance to have their say on this crucial matter, and in that time not a single power has ever been repatriated. I suspect that for some in this House there will never be a right time for a referendum on this issue, but I think that, by anybody’s standards, nearly four decades is quite long enough to wait.
	Moreover, almost two thirds of the people of the United Kingdom have never had the opportunity to vote on this issue. Indeed, figures supplied by the House of Commons Library show that approximately 8 million of the people who voted yes to continuing our membership of the common market back in 1975 are still alive today. That is just 16% of the current voting age population, leaving a staggering 84% who have never voted in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Economic Community.

Heather Wheeler: Back in 1975, I was engaged in political work but I was also too young to have a vote, so I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this important point so early in the debate. The people of South Derbyshire sent me here so that we can have votes on issues such as the one before us.

David Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend. I will now press on.
	A staggering 84% of the current voting age population have never voted in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the EEC, never mind the European Union. Furthermore, if I were a betting man, I would wager that some of those who voted yes back in 1975 may well have since changed their minds. The Common Market has fundamentally changed in size and powers as it has been transformed into the European Union, and without the British people ever being consulted, of course.

Wayne David: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister has not stayed to listen to his speech?

David Nuttall: I am sure that the Prime Minister has many important duties to attend to.

John Baron: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The key point is that what this country joined was, in essence, a free trade area, and that since that time we have seen the continual salami-slicing of our sovereignty and the British people have still not yet been consulted on that change. The Government may talk about referendum locks, but that is tilting at windmills, given that no treaty is on the horizon and that key competences and powers are being transferred in the meantime. It is time to consult the people.

David Nuttall: The European Union Act 2011 deals with the future, but this motion deals with where we are today. People already feel that too many powers have been passed on. At a time when people pick up their phones and spend their own money voting week in, week out to keep their favourite contestants on programmes such as “Strictly Come Dancing” and “The X Factor”, many will be baffled as to why the Government and all those who oppose this motion seem keen to prevent them from having their chance to vote on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union.

Philip Davies: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that people will be even more baffled to understand the position of the Liberal Democrats? They stood on an election manifesto to have an in/out referendum and actually marched out of this House in the previous Parliament because they were denied one, so does he not agree that people will be particularly baffled as to why none of those charlatans over there will be voting for this motion?

David Nuttall: I am sure that millions of Liberal Democrat voters would appreciate having the chance to have their say.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman will know, as I am sure he read the Liberal Democrat manifesto very carefully, that we committed to an in/out referendum at the time of a fundamental shift. That is why we supported an in/out referendum and proposed one in this Chamber at the time of the Lisbon treaty. Perhaps he can explain why every one of his then Conservative colleagues voted against that motion.

David Nuttall: The fact is that all the opinion polls show that approximately two thirds of the people want a referendum now.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Here it is in black and white—it was in orange. This is exactly what the Liberal Democrats wanted to give the people and I am surprised that they are not honouring it today.

David Nuttall: The situation we find ourselves in is rather like that of someone who has boarded a slow train going in one direction and finds, just as they are settling in, that the train starts to career off at high speed in a completely different direction, with carriages being added on left, right and centre, and they are locked in and have no way of getting off. Worse still, the longer people are on the train, the more the fare goes up, but there is absolutely nothing they can do about it because any negotiation with the guards or the driver is almost impossible. This motion would simply allow the train to stop for a while so that the passengers can decide whether they want to continue the journey or even disembark.

John Hemming: A lot of changes are happening throughout Europe. Does my hon. Friend accept that we need to add some junctions to the track in order to identify whether alternative routes are available? Does he agree that we should not wait for a referendum before doing that?

David Nuttall: I believe that now is the time to start—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House to settle down? A large number of noisy private conservations are taking place, which add nothing to but subtract much from the debate. Let us hear Mr David Nuttall.

David Nuttall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that it is now time to start the process of consulting the British people once more. I say “start” because that is all that this motion seeks to do.

Nadine Dorries: Will my hon. Friend also acknowledge that not only is he moving this motion, but more than 100,000 people have signed an e-petition to 10 Downing street calling for him to do just this?

David Nuttall: If one added together all the petitions, one would find that many hundreds of thousands of people have called for us to debate this issue.
	I am conscious that this is one of the most, if not the most, heavily subscribed Back-Bench debates ever. In conclusion, with the three-largest parties in the House all apparently instructing their MPs to vote against the motion despite what those MPs might individually believe to be the best course of action for our country, the result tonight may not be in very much doubt. Members can vote either to give their constituents a choice on Britain’s ongoing relationship with the European Union or to deny them that opportunity. It is as simple as that. If my fellow MPs join me in voting to give the British people a choice in a referendum, they can do so with a clear conscience, knowing that they will have a very large majority of the British people on their side.

Andrew Bridgen: Has my hon. Friend had the same experience as I have? In the past week I have had dozens and dozens of e-mails, telephone calls and letters from constituents urging me to support the motion, whereas the only communication I have had urging me to vote against it has been a telephone call from the Whips Office.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman’s response.

David Nuttall: We always have to be careful about whether we are listening to the vocal minority or the silent majority. I believe that on this issue we should listen to the majority of the British people, who clearly want a referendum.
	Some 40 million people of voting age alive today in this country have not voted in favour of Britain’s membership of the European Union, and this motion would start to put that right. Those who oppose it may well be smiling today, but winning votes in the House using strong-arm tactics does nothing to help to rebuild trust in politicians or to persuade the public that the majority inside the House are reflecting their views. Those who oppose the motion may well win this battle, but they most certainly will not win the war. We should remember the saying that he who laughs last laughs longest. I commend the motion to the House.

Jimmy Hood: I welcome this debate. For new Members in the new Parliament, this will be their first experience of discussing European issues. I have listened to a lot of debates on Europe over the years in this place and they have not changed very much. Of course, I do have some antecedence on European treaties as I was the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and its predecessor for a total of 14 years. I honed my skills in chairmanship by keeping the nine Conservative members of a 16-member Committee from battling with and killing one another. I remember that the split was five pro-Europeans and four who described themselves as sceptics but who we knew were anti. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was on that Committee before I joined it and he and I had many exchanges over the years. I respect his views but do not agree with them, and neither did the majority of the Conservatives in the early part of my European scrutiny days.
	I have fond memories of our debates on the Maastricht treaty. Those of us who were here at that time will remember that a lot of Members on both sides of the House wore a badge of honour for the number of times they voted against a three-line Whip. The hon. Member for Stone will correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that he topped 150-odd occasions of rebelling against the Government. I do not see much difference in the debate today.
	I did not read anything over the weekend to pre-empt the debate that is any different from the debate all those years ago on the Maastricht treaty. I listened to the Prime Minister today, who said that he was against the decision not to give the people a vote on the Maastricht treaty. I do not know—the records may say, but I
	thought he was an adviser in the Treasury in those days, or it may have been just after that—but he was certainly involved in advising the Government of the day.
	We should not forget that Mrs Thatcher gave us the single market and there was no referendum on that. It is the single market more than anything else that has impacted on how Europe works. Those who argue against the single market now were in the House supporting Mrs Thatcher when the measure went through without a referendum.

Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend mentioned Lady Thatcher. Is she not also the former Prime Minister who described referendums as the devices of demagogues and dictators?

Jimmy Hood: I may not be the historian that my hon. Friend gives me credit for, but I remember Mrs Thatcher saying a lot of things. Having been a miner on strike for 12 months during the 1984 miners strike, I have long memories of Mrs Thatcher’s contribution to democracy at that time.

Michael Connarty: The mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), alluded to the fact that Members had been strong-armed into voting against a referendum. Who is likely to be able to strong-arm my hon. Friend?

Jimmy Hood: I have been here for a few Parliaments now and I have never needed to be strong-armed to support the right causes. It is easier for me to say that because I have always been on the Labour Benches and the causes have been easier to support.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman is telling the House of many of his fond memories. Does he remember a certain Tony Blair saying:
	“Of course, Britain could survive outside the EU . . . We could probably get access to the Single Market as Norway and Switzerland do”?

Jimmy Hood: It may surprise the hon. Gentleman that I am not very good at remembering Tony Blair’s quotes either, but I do remember Tony Blair winning three elections with massive majorities, and I can remember the good that that Labour Government did for the country, so I have fond memories of Tony Blair.
	I conclude my brief contribution by saying that there is a false debate going on in the Chamber today. Those on the Government Benches who are arguing about defending democracy and the right of the people are not talking about democracy and they are not talking about defending the rights of the people; they are talking about getting the UK out of the European Union. Some Members on the Government Benches are honourable and argue that, but some do not. It is all about the nuances and the language, but there is a truism in the House and throughout the country.
	The tabloid press is supporting the call for a referendum today. Some are doing it as a good and honourable cause, but there is a side of the tabloid press that supports the right wing on the Government Benches which wants to take the UK out of the European
	Union. I can remember when we joined the European Union. It was trendy on both sides of the House to be against the European Union. We have moved on, our country has moved on, and we need to be not just in Europe but in the heart of Europe. By doing that, we represent the true sovereignty of this Parliament. For that reason, I will vote against the motion tonight.

William Hague: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) and his shocking revelation that there are tabloid newspapers that wish to leave the European Union. This is an important issue at a critical time in European affairs and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on securing the debate and moving the motion, even though, as I will explain, I disagree with it. As so many Members wish to contribute to the debate, I have given you, Mr Speaker, an undertaking that I will speak from the Front Bench for no more than 25 minutes—less, I hope—including interventions. I apologise for having to leave for Australia before the end of the debate.
	Hon. Members who have put their names to the motion have done so for reasons that are honourable and passionately held. I wish to set out briefly six reasons why I believe the proposition to be the wrong one at the wrong time and why it would cut across a European policy that I believe has the best chance of success for this country. The starting point must be the recognition that disillusionment with the European Union in this country is at an unprecedented level, and in this regard there is some common ground between my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and me. Just as I want to say some things that he and others will find difficult to accept, so I put it to those who have always enthused about the prospects for greater European integration that for this country the limits of such integration have been reached—more than reached, in my view.
	The Leader of the Opposition said at the weekend that he did not rule out joining the euro in future. He must recognise that he is totally out of touch, not only with the people of Britain, but with economic reality. That is why the coalition Government—this is the first part of my argument—have already brought about a major change in European policy, which is absolutely in the interests of this country but which the motion would cut across. That change has three aspects, which I will set out briefly. First, following the previous Government’s refusal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, we passed the European Union Act 2011, which sets out that, in the event of a Government proposing any further transfer by treaty of powers or competence to the EU, there must by law be a referendum of the British people.

Dan Byles: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Opposition’s view. Does he not share my bewilderment that the Leader of the Opposition, in response to the Prime Minister’s statement earlier today, appeared to say that the Prime Minister should not go into EU meetings and be robust in the British self-interest in case he upsets the French?

William Hague: Well, I never cease to be bewildered by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, so we will leave him to worry about that himself.
	Any or all of the treaties of the past 20 years would have been caught by the 2011 Act, and under the same Act parliamentary scrutiny of any treaty changes was vastly enhanced. The narrow treaty change that has been agreed to set up the European stability mechanism will now require primary legislation to be passed through both Houses of Parliament, rather than the cursory consideration it would have received under the previous Government.

John Redwood: Does the Foreign Secretary not see that very substantial transfers of power are going on at the moment under this Government by directive, by regulation and by opt-in? Why can we not have some lock or vote on that?

William Hague: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are also improving the scrutiny of opt-in decisions by this House and made some important commitments on that during the passage of the 2011 Act. On financial regulation, as he may know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has had a series of negotiating triumphs that have turned around the situation regarding directives that threaten this country’s financial services industry.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), but then I will make a lot of progress.

Denis MacShane: Is it now the Foreign Secretary’s view, and that of the Prime Minister, as he seemed to indicate in his statement, that we should have had a referendum in 1985 on Mrs Thatcher’s Single European Act?

William Hague: I have just stated my view, which is that all the treaties of the past 20 years would have been caught by the 2011 Act and that there would have been a referendum.
	Secondly, we have negotiated far harder and far more effectively on the European budget, in which the increases proposed have been totally unacceptable to this country. Working with France and Germany, the Prime Minister has achieved a sharp reduction in the EU’s budget increase and a united demand for a real-terms freeze in the seven years from 2014 without making any concessions of our own.
	Thirdly, we have used and will use any treaty change asked for by others to protect and advance our own national interest. The Prime Minister has secured agreement that, in return for accepting a legal basis for the European stability mechanism, Britain will no longer be liable for future eurozone bail-outs through article 122—a liability that the previous Government agreed to in their dying days.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I am going to proceed for a while, given the time constraints. I will give way again a little later.
	We have, therefore, already saved the British taxpayer potentially billions of pounds. None of those three major advances for British interests would have happened
	under the previous Government, because they actually did the opposite: refusing to hold a referendum; giving up £7 billion of rebate in budget negotiations for nothing in return; and signing us into a eurozone bail-out.
	We propose to approach further treaty changes in the same firm and clear manner. We have agreed in the coalition that our first priority in responding to treaty changes aimed at stabilising the eurozone will be to protect the rights of those countries in the EU but outside the eurozone over decisions affecting them, and to prevent damage to the financial services industry that is so important to this country’s economy.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I will give way again in a moment.
	It is my view and the Prime Minister’s view, and the position of the Conservative party, that we will use future opportunities to bring further powers back to the United Kingdom—to repatriate powers to the United Kingdom in those areas where we believe European integration has gone too far.
	The final part of our approach to the EU is to make the case at every opportunity for it to do effectively what we joined it for: to expand the opportunities for trade both within Europe and beyond. Britain is the leading champion of expanding the single market and concluding more free trade agreements with the rest of the world. Last year’s agreement with South Korea is worth up to £500 million to the British economy—a reminder to all of us, when we discuss these matters, that we are talking about not just politics, but people’s jobs and businesses, which we must never forget.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly tried to outline the savings that the Government are making on European costs, but he must know that by 2018 this nation will have spent £356 billion on enforcing EU regulations. Does he not agree that this Parliament could spend it better—on farming, on health care and on social policy—than the European Community?

William Hague: I have explained what we are doing to keep the European budget down, and how I believe the European Union has too much power. The hon. Gentleman must be a little careful, because European Union spending has gone disproportionately to Northern Ireland, and he ought to bear that in mind.

Andrew Selous: On trade, may I take the Foreign Secretary from the general to the specific? A number of my constituents work at the Luton van factory, which very nearly closed before it secured a major contract with Renault to keep it going for the next decade. Does he share my concern that my constituents’ jobs would have been at risk had there been any danger of Britain being outside the European Union and the single market?

William Hague: It is true that if the European Union’s external tariffs were applied to the car industry they would cost this country £1.5 billion a year, so we do have to bear that in mind.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I will have to proceed again. We are under this time constraint.
	That is the Government’s policy towards the EU, and that is why we cannot treat this motion, as some have suggested, in a casual way. To do so would not do justice either to the importance of the issues or to the significance of motions presented in this House.
	The Prime Minister and I, as he said earlier, want many of the same things as some of the motion’s supporters, but we clearly do not advocate leaving the European Union, and I say as someone who has called for referendums on European matters—on Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon and the euro—and consumed vast acres of newsprint over the years, criticising the euro and setting out a different vision of Europe’s future, that the proposition for a referendum before the House today is the wrong proposition at the wrong time. Building on what the Prime Minister said earlier, I want in the 15 minutes remaining to me to give the House six reasons—[ Interruption ]—some of them are very brief, do not worry—why that is the case.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: But I will give way one more time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).

John Baron: No one doubts my right hon. Friend’s Euroscepticism, but, despite all the talk of reclaiming powers, week in, week out competences and powers are being transferred to Brussels under the very noses of the British people. That is why there is growing frustration in the country, and that is why people want a say on whether they become part of this ever-closer political union.

William Hague: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that that is what is happening day by day, or week by week. In foreign affairs, for example, we are absolutely clear, and all our embassies and posts throughout the world are clear, that we will not permit any competence creep following on from the Lisbon treaty.
	My first reason is the same as the first one given earlier by the Prime Minister. The deficits of recent years, and the slowness of growth in all western economies, make this a difficult and uncertain time for many individuals and firms. The eurozone is clearly in crisis, and to pile on that uncertainty the further uncertainty of a referendum on leaving the European Union, when half the foreign direct investment into Britain comes from the rest of the European Union, and half our exports go out to the rest of the European Union, would not be a responsible action for Her Majesty’s Government to take. It would not help anyone looking for a job. It would not help any business trying to expand. It would mean that for a time, we, the leading advocates of removing barriers to trade in Europe and the rest of the world, would lack the authority to do so. It would mean that as we advocate closer trading links between the EU and the countries of north Africa as they emerge from their revolutions, helping to solidify tremendous potential advance in human freedom and prosperity, we would stand back from that. That is not the right way to respond to this dramatic year of uncertainty and change.

William Cash: In light of what my right hon. Friend said in advocacy of the single market as it now operates, will he explain why, between 2009 and 2010, our trade deficit with the 26 member states jumped from minus £14 billion to minus £53 billion, and with the eurozone from minus £4 billion to minus £38 billion in one year—last year alone? Why did that happen, and what is his remedy?

William Hague: The remedy is to restore the health of the British economy, to have a tax system, such as the Chancellor is creating, that attracts businesses to this country, and to create export growth from this country to the whole world, not just to the European Union. We cannot do that if we are not taking part in the free trade agreements that Europe is making with the rest of the world.
	The second and third reasons—

Kate Hoey: rose—

Frank Field: rose—

William Hague: I will give two more reasons, and then I will give way again. The second and third reasons why I do not support the motion can be stated quickly. The second is that the election manifesto on which we stood as Conservative Members was very clear about the referendum legislation that we would introduce and that, in a coalition, we have now passed into law. We were also clear, having been asked about this many times during the election, that that did not include the option of an in-out referendum.
	The third reason is that this Parliament has only recently, just weeks ago, passed with a large majority in this House comprehensive legislation setting out in minute detail the circumstances in which a referendum will be held.

Frank Field: Given that the Foreign Secretary said that if there is further substantial transference of power to Europe, we will have a referendum in this country, and as the Government are advocating closer fiscal and monetary union in Europe, which will obviously lead to major changes, why do they not adopt this motion and fix their own time scale for the referendum that he is promising?

William Hague: The only treaty change agreed so far—I am coming to this point—is the one that puts the European stability mechanism on a legal basis, and for that we secured in return, as the Prime Minister explained, that this country will no longer be forced to be part of eurozone bail-outs. We will respond to every proposal by putting forward what we need in return.
	Any treaty that transfers power to the European Union, and that is interpreted not just by Ministers but by the courts of this country as doing so, will result in a referendum for the people of the United Kingdom.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: Let me give my fourth reason before giving way to a Liberal Democrat Member.
	As the Prime Minister said, there is a serious danger that while holding a referendum such as the one advocated —it is predicated on a Bill in the next session of Parliament, which runs from 2012 to 2013 and means that a referendum would be in 2013 or later—we would lose important opportunities to protect or to further our national interest in the meantime. On all those areas where we need the agreement of others—from the shape of the EU budget up to 2020, to agreement on our requirements for any treaty change—it could be harder, not easier, to get our way.

Simon Hughes: Although of course the Foreign Secretary and his party, and I and mine, come from different positions on Europe, we both made commitments to referendums, but both were conditional on there being a shift of power from this country to Brussels. It therefore must be right that, at the moment, we concentrate on helping our colleagues to sort out the European crisis, which is what businesses want us to do, and on getting our economy to grow again, which is what our constituents, in and out of work, want us to do. The referendum would be an absolute and immediate distraction from that.

William Hague: That is one of the reasons I am giving.
	My fifth reason is that the concept of holding a three-way referendum as set out in the motion is innovative but seriously flawed. Leaving aside for a moment all the uncertainty and difficulty which would occur in the run-up to a referendum, which is my final point, if we are serious about this we have to think carefully about what would actually happen in a three-way vote. It is highly unlikely that any one of the three options would receive more than 50% of the votes. If, for the sake of argument, 40% of people voted to stay in, 30% voted to leave, and 30% voted to renegotiate, would that mean that we stayed in without any renegotiation at all? Is this to be a first-past-the-post referendum or a preferential voting referendum? If it is to be a preferential voting referendum, we have just rejected that system—in a referendum. Perhaps we would have to have a referendum on the voting system for the referendum itself.

Andrew Percy: rose —

William Hague: I will give way again in a moment.
	If we voted to leave the European Union, would that mean that, like Norway, we were in the European Free Trade Association and in the European Economic Area but still paying towards the EU budget, or, like Switzerland, not in the European Economic Area? If we voted to renegotiate
	“based on trade and co-operation”,
	as the motion says, does that mean that we would be in the single market, or not; still subject to its rules, or not? Does “co-operation” mean that we still work together on a united position on Iran, Syria and other foreign policy positions, or not? When we had renegotiated, would we, given the wide range of possible outcomes, need another referendum on the outcome of the negotiation?
	I point these things out because there is a reason why a referendum is normally held on a specific proposition with a yes or no answer, and I believe that any future
	referendum must be held on that basis, not as a multiple choice among vaguely defined propositions.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I said that I would give way again, and I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker).

Steven Baker: Surely my right hon. Friend must know as well as I do that preferential systems are used in this House for certain votes. Is it not equally the case that for some elections, first past the post is appropriate, and for others, a preferential system is appropriate? Why not have this three-way referendum on the basis of the single transferable vote, as we do in this House for other elections?

William Hague: My hon. Friend’s argument is that he would have a preferential voting system, but not everybody would, and I am pointing out the difficulties with that.

Kate Hoey: rose —

Gisela Stuart: rose—

William Hague: I will give way another couple of times in a moment, but I am trying to help the House to make progress.
	My sixth and final problem with the motion is that it does not do justice to the reality that the European Union is not a matter of everything or nothing. We are in the European Union, but not, thankfully, in the euro. We are not in the Schengen border control area. We opt out of many justice and home affairs provisions. I do not believe that most people in Britain want to say yes to everything in the EU or no to everything in the EU; I believe that they want to know that no more powers will be handed over to Brussels without their explicit consent, which is what we have provided for in our Act.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi).

Gisela Stuart: I am sure that we still have sufficient time before the Foreign Secretary catches the plane to get him a DVD of his 2008 speech on the Second Reading of the legislation on the Lisbon treaty. He can then blush in the privacy of the aeroplane and probably answer the question as to why he was for referendums then and is against them now, the difference being that now he is in government.

William Hague: It will not be necessary to get the DVD—it is on YouTube. I can assure the hon. Lady that my position is exactly the same. I was in favour of a referendum on any treaty that hands over the powers of the people of the United Kingdom, and I am in favour of that now.

Bernard Jenkin: I happened to bump into the chairman of the Electoral Commission today and he did not rule out a three-option referendum as impractical. Did my right hon. Friend consult the Electoral Commission on this matter before giving his opinion?
	Will my right hon. Friend also bear it in mind that the treaties are now so comprehensive that at the conclusion of the summit he has just attended, the European Union is setting up a new institution that does not even require the British signature on a new treaty: the so-called euro summit of the 17. He and his colleagues are having difficulty keeping track of things because that is how the European Union now works. The veto was the foundation of our membership and it is being eroded before our eyes.

William Hague: There is certainly no proposal at the moment to set up such an EU institution. That is an intergovernmental arrangement. Our first priority, as I and the Prime Minister have explained, is to ensure that matters that should be decided at the level of 27 countries are decided by the 27, not by the 17. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s information about the Electoral Commission—another unelected body that is trying to decide what we might do. I am giving my opinion on the consequences of a three-way referendum.
	I will give way one more time.

Nadhim Zahawi: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, whether in business or in politics, the best strategies end up failing if they are badly timed?

William Hague: I absolutely agree with that. I reinforce the point that this is the wrong proposition at the wrong time.
	The British people want to know that no more powers will be given away without their consent; that at a time of budgetary restraint, EU institutions will be faced with the financial reality, which is what our Prime Minister is doing; that we will address the crisis in the eurozone with clarity about what should be done, while minimising the exposure of the British taxpayer, which is what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are engaged in; that we will make a passionate case for Europe to take measures that help growth and free up businesses to trade and expand, which is what we are doing; that we will do nothing to add to economic uncertainty at a difficult and dangerous time; and that we will seek to repatriate powers as the opportunity arises, which is my position and that of the Prime Minister. That is the right policy for the United Kingdom.

Douglas Alexander: It is a pleasure, as always, to speak after the Foreign Secretary. This debate takes place at a time of great peril and uncertainty for the British and European economies. I am sorry that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, for whatever reason, have felt unable to join us in the Chamber for the debate, which has already revealed, no matter what the result in the Division Lobbies this evening, the scale of division on the Government Benches.
	I urge opposition to the motion because I do not believe that Britain’s national interest would be served by spending the coming months and years debating the case for Britain leaving the world’s largest single market. Recent figures have revealed that there has been zero growth in the economy since last autumn. Unemployment is rising again and has reached a 17-year high. Almost 1 million young people are unable to find work. Amid all the passion generated by this debate, no one can dispute the enduring significance of European markets to Britain’s economic prospects.

Graham Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Douglas Alexander: I will make a little progress, then I will be happy to give way.
	Let me share with the House the description of Europe’s economic importance to Britain given to me in a recent parliamentary answer by none other than the Foreign Secretary:
	“European markets account for half of the UK’s overall trade and foreign investments and as a result, around 3.5 million jobs in the UK are linked to the export of goods and services to the EU.”
	He states that those markets provide
	“the world’s most important trading zone, generating total GDP close to £10 billion in 2010”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 256W.]
	In what I hope was a drafting error rather than an economic forecast, he of course got the size of Europe’s GDP wrong by a factor of 1,000. It actually had a GDP close to £10 trillion in 2010. The importance of the European economy to the British economy is none the less clear.

John Redwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if Britain seeks a better deal, Germany will not turn around and say that it will not sell us any more cars and France will not say that it will sell us no more wine? That is an absurd scare.

Douglas Alexander: Talking of absurd scares, it is now 12 years since the right hon. Gentleman pronounced the death of Britain in his book, so I am a little cautious of taking his advice on the matter.
	All of us are aware that growth is stalling in Europe. Indeed, growth forecasts were downgraded in Germany just last week. We need to consider the economic effects at home and in our largest export markets abroad if the motion were to be passed. Businesses deciding whether to invest in Britain at this crucial time would have to make that decision not knowing whether it would still be in the European Union by the time that investment came to fruition.

William Cash: I would be most grateful if the shadow Foreign Secretary would answer the question that I put to the Foreign Secretary about the tremendous advantages that they claim for this economic miracle of Europe. How do you explain that under your watch, when you were in government—[Interruption.] Not yours, Mr Speaker. Can he explain why, under Labour’s watch, the trade deficit with the other 26 member states went up from minus £14 billion to minus £53 billion in one year between 2009 and 2010?

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that I have never been in government, and fortunately never will be?

Douglas Alexander: The global financial crisis that was suffered in 2007 is hardly news to anybody in the House. Indeed, it seems to me that there is a broadening consensus that international economic circumstances affect the performance of the British economy. We are increasingly hearing that line from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	The House has only recently debated the circumstances in which it judged it appropriate for a referendum to take place, and tried to formalise the process by which to decide what is significant and what is not. The current Government legislated for that in the European Union Act 2011.

Graham Stuart: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept his role in the corrosive state of public mistrust in politics, after promising a referendum on the European constitution, aka Lisbon, and then breaking that promise, and of course after agreeing to the bail-out in the dying days of the last Government? Have the billions of pounds of public money that have been spent on that helped jobs in this country? I suggest to him that they have not.

Douglas Alexander: First, the inconvenient truth for the hon. Gentleman is that there is no EU constitution. It was rejected by the Dutch and French voters. Secondly, if I recall properly, the newest member of the Cabinet, the Transport Secretary, is on record as having written a letter confirming the cross-party nature of support for the steps that were taken. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman might be better directing his question to the newest member of the Cabinet.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Douglas Alexander: I am keen to make a little progress, then I will give way again.
	What is proposed on the Order Paper is something entirely different from the recent debates. The motion suggests that the priority should be to debate, campaign on and decide on the question whether Britain should exit the European Union. That is the question of substance that sits beneath the motion—whether it is in Britain’s national interest to leave the EU.
	I do not wish to intrude too much on the private grief of Conservative Back Benchers, but their disappointment in their Front Benchers is so great because their hopes were so high. The Foreign Secretary has journeyed a long way, because it was he who said:
	“If you believe in an independent Britain then come with me and I will give you back your country.”
	Yet if he was not rather conveniently getting on a plane to Australia this evening, the self-same Foreign Secretary would be coming with me into the No Lobby to support membership of the European Union. Along with the rest of the Conservative Front Benchers, he is today marooned between past pandering and his present position; between the rhetoric of opposition and the realities of government.

Nadhim Zahawi: Is the right hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy still to take this country into the euro?

Douglas Alexander: It was the Labour Government who judged—

Nadhim Zahawi: Yes or no?

Douglas Alexander: Just let me answer the question. The economics were not right to enter the euro; the economics are not right to enter the euro; and we do not envisage circumstances in which the economics will be right to enter the euro in the foreseeable future.
	Let me offer Government Members a further argument about how they should vote this evening:
	“What most people want in this country, I believe, is not actually to leave the European Union, but to reform the European Union”.
	Those were not my words but the words of their own Prime Minister. And what of the Prime Minister’s real influence in Europe, about which we have heard something this afternoon? It is true that European leaders have been arguing for months, but President Sarkozy’s comments last night, which seem to have engendered pride among Conservative Members, confirmed that about the only thing that European leaders can agree upon is how unconvincing they find the stance of the British Prime Minister. Let me share with the House the President’s words. He said:
	“We’re sick of you criticising us and telling us what to do. You say you hate the euro…and now you want to interfere in our meetings”.
	When I read that, I thought for a moment that the President had joined the 1922 committee. The President, European leaders and even 1922 committee members are unconvinced by the position that the Prime Minister has adopted.
	The Prime Minister boasts to the House that he will have a leading role when European leaders gather at lunch on Wednesday, but on last night’s performance, he will be lucky to get a bread roll from them. The Prime Minister’s isolation results directly from the sad truth that in recent weeks, the Government have spent more time negotiating with their Back Benchers than they have spent negotiating with European partners.

John Baron: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is creating an Aunt Sally by talking about the economics of the EU? This debate is about whether we give a say to the British people by having a referendum on the future direction of the EU. Why will he not accept that there is disillusionment about ever-closer political union, and that this debate is not about free trade and access to EU markets?

Douglas Alexander: First, the hon. Gentleman could have directed that question at the Foreign Secretary. Secondly, it is in the character of the EU that it is not open to the UK to say, “We will involve ourselves exclusively in economic and trade matters,” because we need to secure the support of other European partners for such changes. I accept that there is a concern among the British public in relation to Europe. My answer to that concern is not to leave Europe, but to reform it. In that way at least, I agree with Conservative Front Benchers.

Wayne David: Would it not be far better for the Prime Minister of this country to argue the case for a growth strategy for the whole of the European Union instead of arguing with his Back Benchers?

Douglas Alexander: We waited in vain for answers to the Leader of the Opposition’s questions on the British Government’s position on what should happen on Wednesday in relation to the scale and significance of the bail-out fund for Greece, and even if the issue of Greek debt is addressed, profound questions remain on economic growth and productivity.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the previous Labour Government gave away a huge amount of our annual rebate in return for the reform of the common agricultural policy? How successful has that reform been?

Douglas Alexander: I am glad that at least a degree of truth is entering our discussions—it was suggested earlier that the rebate had not been continued—but I recollect well the circumstances in which those negotiations took place back in 2005. If I recall correctly, there was broad cross-party agreement that we had a responsibility to welcome the A10—the new members of the EU—and that it was inevitable that the European budget would be adjusted to reflect their entry. I am unyielding in my continued commitment to the need for reform of the CAP—I hope that that is another matter on which there is genuine cross-party agreement.

Michael Connarty: There is a lot of talk about being honest with the British people. My right hon. Friend has exposed the false prospectus of the main Government party, but he has been light in tackling the Liberal Democrats, who committed themselves to a referendum, and who are now jumping into bed with the Tories just to keep—so it seems to me—their ministerial cars.

Douglas Alexander: I want to deal with business before pleasure. That the Liberal Democrats take strong, principled stands in their manifesto and choose to break them only a matter of months later might simply be habitual, but I await with interest a speech from a Liberal Democrat that tries to make sense of the contortions that they have got themselves into.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Government Members seriously underestimated the economic situation worldwide and thought that they could confine it to Britain, and that as a result the Prime Minister will have less credibility in Europe when he tries to renegotiate some of the powers that have been given to Europe?

Douglas Alexander: I have great sympathy with that point. For many months before and after the election, the Conservative party suggested that Lehman Brothers collapsed and the Greek economy was in difficulty because the Labour Government built too many schools and hospitals and employed too many doctors and nurses. The Government are now attempting suddenly to change their story and attribute their having, this year alone, to reduce the growth forecast four times—if I recollect correctly—to the fact that the Greek and European economies are not performing appropriately. That they are having so much difficulty explaining the inadequacy of their own policy is diminishing their credibility not only in the halls of the European Council, but among the British public.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Douglas Alexander: I am happy to give way to a Liberal Democrat.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman is making an unfortunately partisan speech and misrepresenting the clear Liberal Democrat pledge to support a referendum at the time of a fundamental shift in the relationship between Britain and Europe—I am sure that that will be pointed out many times today. Should we not instead be uniting to counter the threat to the £351 billion of direct investment from other EU states posed by discussion of a referendum at this vital time?

Douglas Alexander: I think that the person who started with a partisan speech was the Foreign Secretary, who was at pains continually to assert the position of the Conservative party—a very different approach from that of speaking on behalf of the Government, which is the conventional approach from Government members. However, if the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) wants to continue to defend and account for the position of the Liberal Democrats, I wish him the best of luck.

Robert Halfon: Why does the right hon. Gentleman persist in treating the electorate as fools by describing the Lisbon treaty as not a European constitution, when everybody else knows that it is? Is this not one reason why there is so much mistrust in Europe?

Douglas Alexander: Some of the frustration and disappointment I hear from the Government Benches would be better directed towards the Treasury Bench, rather than the Opposition. On Lisbon, one need only recollect the cast-iron guarantee that the now Prime Minister offered to his own Back Benchers. The position on Lisbon has been well-rehearsed. What was new, frankly, was the Prime Minister’s statement today that he supported a referendum on Maastricht. That must have been news to the Foreign Secretary, who entered the Division Lobby to oppose such a referendum—if I recollect correctly.

Bernard Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman says that we should concentrate on reforming the EU from within, but what happened during 13 years of Labour Government? They failed to reform the CAP and the budget, while the accounts have not been signed off for more than 14 years. What happened to the Lisbon competitiveness agenda, signed up to in 2010, to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world? Where were we by 2010? Has he not demonstrated that he tested that policy to destruction and that there must be change?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman takes an honourable position with which I disagree: that Britain’s best interests are served by leaving the EU. On the EU’s changing character, I would pray in aid the accession of 10 new members of what was previously the eastern bloc and the change that that has effected to the balance within the EU. Of course, however, there are continuing challenges, which is why I regard it as such a disappointment that the Government seem to glory in the isolation that the
	Prime Minister has secured for himself, when we should be arguing for continued reform not just of the European budget—

Bernard Jenkin: You failed.

Douglas Alexander: It was the hon. Gentleman’s own Prime Minister who went to Brussels last year asserting that there was going to be no rise in the European budget but left having voted in favour of a rise.

Denis MacShane: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that under Margaret Thatcher the CAP took 70% of the EEC-EU budgets, but that that figure is now less than 40%, and that under John Major the EU budget was 1.23% of European gross domestic product, but that it is now 1%? It is not perfect, but reform goes on all the time, and I wish the Foreign Secretary well as he continues those reforms. But do not live with these myths.

Douglas Alexander: I concur with the bipartisan character of that intervention. The Prime Minister’s isolation results directly from the sad truth that in recent weeks the Government seem to have spent more time negotiating with the people from whom we have just heard.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Douglas Alexander: No, I shall make some progress.
	By default or design, the Government’s habit of sitting on the sidelines, only criticising and carping, has proved to be genuinely bad for Britain and the prospects for reform within Europe. All parties support the single market. We want to see reforms on the digital economy, services and energy that could make a real, practical difference to the lives and opportunities of British companies and consumers. All parties support European-level co-ordination on issues where we can work together internationally, such as—I agree with the Foreign Secretary on this—cutting off the oil that helps to prop up the Syrian regime of President Assad.
	The way to address the present concerns is reform of Europe, not exit from Europe. Britain’s economy is flatlining and Europe’s economy is in crisis. Putting off investment and undermining confidence at such a critical time would be the wrong choice for this House and the country. The right course for British growth, British jobs and British interests is to reject the motion before the House.

Mark Pritchard: I understand that I have only five minutes, so I will take only two interventions—if people want to intervene—if colleagues do not mind.
	I would like to address first the process and principle of the motion and then present-day Europe, if colleagues will forgive the alliteration. The origins of today’s debate lie in the Government’s democratic outreach, through e-petitions. More than 100,000 people signed an e-petition calling for a debate in Parliament on this issue. The Backbench Business Committee then decided that to be the right debate to bring before Parliament and, as Members will know, that Committee is elected by the House. This debate has not been brought about by a
	small or large number of Conservative Back Benchers, therefore; it is a response to the will and the voice of the British people.
	Also, it is wrong to try to frame this debate as calling for an immediate referendum or, indeed, for an in-or-out referendum. That is clearly not the case, as is self-evident from the motion, which is mainstream and inclusive. The motion calls for a Bill and has a timetable referring to this Session. As colleagues will know, that Bill might not come forward for another 18 months and would be subject to the same drafting, the same consultation and the same amendments and new clauses as any other Bill. Therefore, to suggest that the motion necessarily reflects what would be in the Bill is disingenuous at best. Any subsequent referendum would also be consulted on with the Electoral Commission in the normal way and would not necessarily reflect the motion before the House today. This is not about an immediate referendum—I would not support an immediate referendum—nor is it about an in-or-out referendum, which I would not support at this stage. I support a trade-plus relationship with Europe; let us see how Europe responds. If it does not respond, perhaps the British people in future will demand that this Parliament move to an in-or-out referendum.

Andrew Percy: Is not the point that as far as pro-Europeans are concerned there will never be a right time for a referendum? Indeed, we could see constituents in Scotland voting on their relationship with the Union with England, while our constituents in England will be denied any say about our relationship with Europe.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as always. We have had referendums on a range of issues, whether in Northern Ireland, London, Wales or Scotland—indeed, referendums on anything but the European issue. I hope that that will change.
	Some have accused some Government Members—and even some Opposition Members—of making Europe an issue. I would remind the House that Europe is an issue today because Europe is making itself an issue, not those on our Back Benches. On the principle, millions of people have never had a say on the European question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, because they either had not been born or were not old enough to vote in 1975. Even among those who were old enough to vote, many thought that they were signing up for a common market, not a political union.

Bob Stewart: I was old enough to vote in 1975, and I voted for joining the European Union for economic reasons and nothing else. It has changed hugely in my lifetime, and I would now like a vote on whether we continue with the slide into a political union. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. He and others signed up to a common market, but that has not turned out to be the case. The millions of people in the group that I call the “great disenfranchised” need to be enfranchised. They are the lost generation of voters that the political establishment in this country has left behind.

Damian Collins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Pritchard: Forgive me; I will not have any more time if I give way.
	No politician should have anything to fear from the ballot box. This is not just about the narrow renegotiation of powers, or the question of in or out, or remaining in the European Union on the present terms, although that is the text of the motion. This is fundamentally about freedom and democracy, and about ensuring that the European project has ongoing democratic legitimacy, which it currently lacks. I believe that the 1975 referendum result has now passed its sell-by date.
	Europe is going to become more of an issue, not less of one. That is self-evident, given the possibility of a financial transaction tax—I welcome the Government’s opposition to that—or of more bail-outs up to 2013. There might not be any beyond that point, but there is always the possibility of back-door bail-outs through low-cost International Monetary Fund loans. There are also the questions of fiscal union, of the loss of Britain’s veto that President Barroso hinted at the other day, and of a single Treasury. Most of my predictions are wrong, so I give the House a big health warning here, but I predict that we might move more rapidly along a fast track to the first elected EU President under a universal franchise. All those things must be resisted. There are those who argue that the renegotiation of powers should come after a referendum. I disagree. I believe that a referendum would empower the Prime Minister to go to Brussels to negotiate. It would also put Brussels on notice that it needed to listen to the British people.
	My parliamentary colleagues have come under some pressure, and I say to all of them who are supporting the motion today that they are not rebels; they are patriots. They are people of their country. There are those who say that members of my party are obsessed by Europe, but there is only one obsession on these Benches today, and that is an obsession with growing the economy and tackling the deficit left by Labour. That should not be replaced by the obsession of those who obsess about not giving the people a voice.
	I say to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for whom I have a huge respect, that the domestic politics of this country can no longer be disaggregated from the economics of the eurozone or the European Union. Europe will therefore have to be dealt with at some point, whether this evening or at some other time in the near future. We as a party, as a country, as a democracy and as a Parliament should listen to the people and be ahead of the political curve, rather than behind it. There are those who are calling for a fresh start. What better fresh start than a fresh vote? Let us do the right thing by allowing all the British people their birthright: a vote on the destiny of their own country. I say to all those who want to support the motion: history is on our side. I say to the Government: we may have a referendum lock, but please don’t start to unpick it.

David Crausby: I will not be voting for the motion this evening, not because I do not believe that the British electorate are entitled to a referendum on European membership; I do. I shall not vote for the motion because the third option makes complete nonsense of the proposal. It establishes the motion as belonging to the far right of the Conservative party, which wants nostalgically to return to the 1970s
	when the common market was a big businessmen’s club with no workers rights that contained only nine member states. If that were not the case, the motion would include further left-wing options to improve workers rights, for example, but then it would start to look like an even more ridiculous referendum.
	The matter should be clear. The question should be whether we should be in or out of Europe. The present three-way proposal would result in a complete dog’s breakfast, leaving the British people as frustrated as ever. What is clear to me, however, is that public dissatisfaction with our Euro-relationship will not go away because Britain has never really had a fair and democratic say.
	We were taken into the Common Market in the first place by a Conservative Government without a referendum because Ted Heath knew full well that the public would not have voted for entry. He was well rewarded by defeat at the next election. When Harold Wilson delivered his promised referendum on the so-called negotiated terms, it was a complete farce. To be fair, his Government were rewarded by defeat at the next election.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was active in the Labour party at that time and I voted no. My hon. Friend might remember that the great majority of Labour MPs at that time voted no in the referendum and that a special Labour party conference had a big no vote on the referendum as well. It was the leadership who supported our continued membership of Europe.

David Crausby: Things have certainly changed. The 1975 referendum yes campaign was all about arguing that leaving Europe would take us into isolation. There were even claims from the yes campaign that if we left we would be starved of food. My own employer at the time wrote to every employee, urging them to vote yes, claiming that leaving the Common Market would cost jobs. They employed more than 3,000 people at that time; now they employ just 100—so I suppose matters could have been worse.

Graham Stringer: I was on the same side as my hon. Friend in 1975 and I voted to come out of the EEC as it then was, but does he agree that the biggest lie told then about the referendum on entry to the EEC was by Ted Heath when he said that there would be no loss of sovereignty?

David Crausby: I will come to that. Voters were deceived by promises of huge increases in national prosperity and soothed by the leadership of the three political parties into voting yes. On one side of the argument sat the three party leaders—Harold Wilson, Ted Heath and Jeremy Thorpe—and on the other sat Enoch Powell and Tony Benn. The British media almost universally portrayed the issue as established common sense against the extreme fringes. The Government produced a document entitled “Britain’s New Deal in Europe”—I kept it because I knew I would be able to hold it against them one day—in red, white and blue. It recommended a yes vote; it was delivered by the Post Office to every home and it made clear promises. The most important promise was that Britain had a veto on all important new policies and developments. It said:
	“No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.”
	Just 10 years later, another Conservative Government completely reneged on that vital promise without a referendum. This time, it was Margaret Thatcher who gave up Britain’s veto when she signed the Single European Act, which actually makes Maastricht and Lisbon look like a sideshow. To talk now about “no new powers to Europe” is, quite frankly, shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted. It may well be that this is not the time to resolve the British people’s dissatisfaction with our membership of the European Union, but the time must come.

Michael Connarty: I often find that people list all the things that they are against when they make an argument, but given my hon. Friend’s background in the trade union movement, surely he must welcome the fact that the social chapter and social Europe have been massively important for improving the lives of our people?

David Crausby: I do, but my point is that we will not resolve this issue until we have sought the consent of the British people, which we have never done.
	The leaders of our major political parties must face the facts. If they wish constructively to maintain our relationship with Europe, with public support, they should have the collective courage to take the argument to our people, instead of huddling together against a referendum every time it arises.

Adam Holloway: I had no real background in politics when I was elected in 2005. I had been a soldier and a television reporter. In fact, I had never even been into the House of Commons Chamber.
	A couple of days before the House sat for the first time after the election, I wandered into the Members’ Lobby and chatted to one of the security guards, who let me into the Chamber. It was dark, and I started to think about the historic things that had happened here. I thought of Winston Churchill leading Members out of the House to St Margaret’s church to give thanks for the end of the second world war. And then I asked myself, “Why are you thinking about yourself and how clever you are to have got here?” Actually, this was about the thousands of voters in Gravesend, Northfleet and the villages who had allowed me to overturn quite a healthy Labour majority and replace it with a pretty tiny Conservative one.
	Did any of us imagine when we made our acceptance speeches at the counts that Members of Parliament would be slagged off to quite the degree that they are now? My mother does not like to tell people that I am a Member of Parliament, because of the response that she receives when she does.

Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adam Holloway: I should love to.

Denis MacShane: Surely what the hon. Gentleman’s mother does not want to admit is that he is a Conservative Member of Parliament. That is the problem.

Adam Holloway: It may have something to do with the fact that she lives in the north of Scotland.
	This country developed and exported the simple idea that laws ought not to be made unless they were made by the people’s elected representatives, but it seems from some of the e-mails that I have been receiving over the last three days that some of our constituents are quite close to giving up on that notion. Why is that? We hear the reason every time we meet our constituents. “You are all the same,” they tell us. “You will say anything to get elected.” One of the things on which I have agreed with them over the past seven years is that we should have a referendum at some point, and, in my view, we need to completely rewire our relationship with Europe. We need to be in Europe, not run by Europe.
	What we are taking about today is not just Britain’s relationship with the European Union, but the authority and legitimacy of this Chamber. During the last Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was one of the leaders of all three parties who expressed the view that we should have a referendum on Europe.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adam Holloway: I will not, actually.
	The Deputy Prime Minister was even louder in his protestations. He said:
	“The Liberal Democrats believe we should have a real vote on Europe—whether we should be in Europe or out… the public back our position by a margin of 2:1”.
	I should say that the margin is about the same today. Those statements, and many more from the Front Benches, render irrelevant the arguments that we have heard today about whether this is the right moment for a referendum.
	I am sure that if the Government had not liked today’s motion, they could have come up with something. What would it say about the relationship between Parliament and the people if we were to deny not only what we have recently promised, but what people out there, at our invitation, have asked us to do through the petition?
	I should have much preferred a Conservative Government, but I support this Government sincerely and spiritedly. I was one of only about 50 Back Benchers who supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) in the leadership election, and now I really do think—I am not just sucking up—that he is a brilliant Prime Minister. I have never voted against the party line, even when I have known enough about what we were discussing to be aware that I should vote against it. I have loved doing my minuscule job as a parliamentary private secretary in the foreign affairs team, whose Ministers I respect—and believe me, they are doing a very good job. Trust me, and again I am not sucking up, they do not come better than the Minister for Europe—“Hear, hear” at this point. [Laughter.]
	I am mostly enthusiastic about the coalition in private. If you are part of a team, you support it. But if you cannot support a particular policy, the honest course of action is of course to stand down. I want decisions to be closer to the people whom they affect—to be made by local communities, not sent upwards towards Brussels. I am not prepared to go back on my word to my constituents, and I am really staggered that loyal people
	like me have been put in this position. If Britain’s future as an independent country is not a proper matter for a referendum, I have absolutely no idea what is.

William Cash: Many people in the country, knowing of the integrity and the honesty that is reflected in my hon. Friend’s speech and knowing that this honourable gentleman—this honourable friend—has decided that he will resign his position as a parliamentary private secretary in the Foreign Office on a matter of such importance, will commend him for it.

Adam Holloway: Obviously, I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
	We do not have the right to give away powers entrusted to us by our constituents. To anyone who is still wondering which way to vote, I say: “Do not try to guess what the result of a referendum would be, and do not worry about wording or timing. You need only ask yourself two questions. First, is this the right thing to do in principle? Secondly, what do your constituents want you to do?” Here is our opportunity to show people that the system can work, that representative government continues to function in the land where it was nurtured and developed, and that patriotism—putting one’s country rather than one’s own interests first—is not foreign to the House.

Mark Pritchard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Adam Holloway: No, I really cannot give way now.
	Members can repay the confidence placed in them by their constituents on that first evening when they stood on the platform and heard the returning officer mention their name. They should not rebel against the people who sent them here. For me, the bottom line is really quite straightforward. For seven years I have been wandering around telling the good people of Gravesham that we should have a referendum, and that we should renegotiate our position. Let me end by saying this: “If you have done the same, you must support the motion.”

Nigel Dodds: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway). I salute him and commend what he has done in putting the country and his constituents before his party. I think that Members here, and his constituents, will praise him loudly for his actions today.
	The Foreign Secretary described this as a symbolic debate, and I suppose that there is something symbolic in the fact that tonight, despite his words, he will be heading as far from the European Union as he possibly can—although, if I may paraphrase him slightly, he should think about the rest of us who must stay here until long after he has gone.
	The people who deserve to be given credit first tonight are those who signed the petition to secure the debate. I was pleased to be able to go to No. 10, along with others from the House and outside, to deliver that petition. I also commend the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to take place. I think that it is very timely indeed.
	We meet in the context of reports that are swirling around of threats against Members of Parliament and their ministerial careers, and all sorts of indications of Members’ inability to find new seats should they vote the wrong way tonight. It was said, I think again by the Foreign Secretary, that Members were not adopting a casual approach to the debate. That is certainly true of the Whips, who have very evidently been far from casual in the lines that they have taken. I think it deeply regrettable that the Whips in all parties should be so vociferous on such an issue. This is a Back-Bench debate, and people should be allowed to have their say and vote freely.
	One of the problems most evident in political discourse in society today, throughout the United Kingdom, is the disconnection between Parliament—and political leaders—and the people. There is no better illustration of that than the spectacle tonight, in the House, of three party leaders and leaderships telling Members of Parliament, many of whom—in all parties—want a referendum and want to let the people have their say, that they must vote against that. I believe that although the vote may be won today by the party leaderships and the Whips, ultimately the people will have their say, because we have seen throughout the rest of the world that the people cannot be denied their democratic will.

Anne-Marie Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, in the words of Gandhi:
	“Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side”?

Nigel Dodds: I entirely agree, and I think that people in all parts of the United Kingdom who are listening to the debate will be mystified by some of the arguments being put forward, which are completely contrary to their wish simply to have a choice. Regardless of whether people are for or against the EU, they are entitled to have their say.
	We have witnessed a breach of trust by the Labour party. It denied the people of this country a vote on the Lisbon treaty, which was, in effect, a European constitution. The Conservative party has done the same thing, because before the last election the Prime Minister gave a cast-iron guarantee that there would be a vote; and the Lib Dems said, “We must have an in/out referendum,” yet we are now told they will vote against tonight’s motion.

William McCrea: As the majority of the United Kingdom electorate have never voted on our relationship with the rest of Europe, why does my right hon. Friend believe this Government seek to deny them that right through a referendum? Are they afraid of what answer the people might give?

Nigel Dodds: I will address the arguments advanced by the Foreign Secretary shortly.
	The Democratic Unionist party is the only party in this House that is united in favour of a referendum for the people of the United Kingdom. We have been consistent on that point; we called for a vote on the Lisbon treaty, the Single European Act and Maastricht. We have also been consistent on the euro.

Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Dodds: I cannot give way again, as I do not want to lose any time. The right hon. Gentleman may well have a chance to speak later on.
	Many Members on both sides of the House—including some representing Northern Ireland constituencies—are hiding their views on the euro now. They are shy about letting the people know what they truly believe about it. I am glad that our party has been entirely consistent and principled on that, and that our position has been vindicated.
	The are clear reasons for calling a referendum. It is clear that the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom want a referendum; that is their settled will. Moreover, 36 years have passed since the people have had a chance to deliver a verdict. This is also clearly not a party political issue; rather, it is a constitutional one. Members on both sides of the House hold different views, too, as this is a matter that transcends party allegiance. The people must therefore have their say.
	It is nonsense to talk about a referendum being a distraction. The EU and all its works go to the heart of decision making on all aspects of policy in this House and in Government. We must therefore have a chance to deliver our verdict on how the relationship between Europe and the United Kingdom should evolve. Moreover, the crisis in the eurozone and the consequent move to create a tighter fiscal union among its 17 members will have a direct and profound impact on the United Kingdom. That is going to happen, and the Prime Minister has indicated that there is likely to be a treaty change. Therefore, despite the argument advanced by the Foreign Secretary that now is not the right time, it is clear that we are going to have a referendum.
	The Foreign Secretary listed the occasions on which he advanced the argument for a referendum. I am glad he did so on those occasions, but I am sorry that he is not advancing that argument now, and that when he did so in the past, there was no talk about a referendum being a distraction and about uncertainty for business. The Conservative party was saying very clearly that it was right to have a referendum. Why, therefore, is now suddenly not the right time?
	The crisis in the eurozone offers an opportunity for the British people to be given their say, and we must grasp it. It will be scandalous if the people are denied that chance. We are told that that was not in the manifesto, but that argument does not wash, because a referendum on the alternative vote was not in the manifesto either, yet a referendum on that was inflicted on the people of the United Kingdom.
	The Foreign Secretary also claimed that there was a danger that opportunities would be lost if we were distracted by having a referendum, but why should that be the case? Why would we not have the opportunity to continue to advance our case in Europe at the same time as laying the groundwork for a referendum, which he and the Prime Minister admit is likely to be on the cards fairly soon anyway? It is better that we take that into our own hands by making the preparations now, so that we give the people of this country what they want: a referendum.

Anne Main: It is a delight to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who made an impassioned speech. I am pleased that we were both named signatories to the motion, as that shows that there is cross-party support for this debate. I was, however, disappointed to hear my Prime Minister say in his statement before the debate that tonight’s vote will show the will of Parliament, as it clearly will not do so. It will show the will of the Whips; it will show the will of enforcement. It will certainly not show the will of the people, who have voted for us to be elected to Parliament to speak on their behalf. I am therefore saddened, as I would like Parliament to express the will of the people tonight.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) gave a fine speech, in which he pointed out that some people will say anything to get elected. If Members have been going around their constituencies and the country saying, “I’d like to have a referendum,” when they have the chance to have one they should be principled. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having taken the principled stance of resigning from his post over this. As he said, he spent seven years telling his constituents, “Given a chance, I would give you the opportunity of a referendum.”
	It was with a degree of sadness that I dug out the Liberal Democrat leaflet— printed, boldly, in orange. It calls for a real referendum on Europe, and many Members have referred to it. It was printed only a very few months ago, and just before a general election, and I am sure people were giving them out in their thousands. Many people ask what the defining difference is between us and the Liberal Democrats, and perhaps this leaflet helps to answer that. It carries the name of the current Deputy Prime Minister, and a photograph of his face is printed on it, and this is what it says:
	“It’s been over THIRTY YEARS since the British people last had a vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union. That’s why the Liberal Democrats want a real referendum on Europe. Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide our country’s future. But Labour don’t want the people to have their say…The Conservatives only support a limited referendum, on the Lisbon Treaty. Why won’t they give the people a say in a real referendum? Not everything is perfect in Europe, but we”—
	the Liberal Democrats—
	“believe our membership has been good for the country. In Europe we can get real action to tackle climate change…That’s why the Liberal Democrats will campaign to stay in Europe in the referendum. But whether you agree with Europe or not, it is vital that you and the British people have a say in a real EU referendum.”
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) takes a principled position in arguing exactly the same point. He is in favour of the EU, and he could make that argument in a referendum campaign. Moreover, we are not debating nuances tonight.

John Redwood: As my hon. Friend noted, when the Liberal Democrats were in opposition they read opinion polls to choose popular policies, but now that they are in government they read opinion polls to choose the most unpopular policies possible. Some 80% of the public do not want a three-line Whip, so they impose one; 67% of the public want a referendum, so they are now against that.

Anne Main: Well—

Martin Horwood: rose—

Anne Main: I shall not give way to Liberal Democrat Members, as they can speak for themselves when they make their speeches. They can explain why, throughout a general election period, they gave out thousands of leaflets promising a real in/out referendum in which they would be prepared to defend their principled stand of wanting to stay in Europe.
	I was surprised that the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) lost the plot by getting hung up on the wording. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who proposed the motion, has got it absolutely right, and I hope the hon. Gentleman reconsiders his position.
	The argument tonight is not about the wording; it is about whether or not we give the hundreds of thousands of people who want an opportunity to discuss this issue the chance to do so. Whichever side of the argument people fall on, and whatever the answer may be, we should not be frightened of simply giving them the chance to have that debate. That is what we are voting on. We are not voting on the wording. We are not voting on whether we should be in or out. We are voting on whether we want to give the British people a chance to hear the arguments in a reasoned way, rather than hear them as a result of a knee-jerk referendum called because Europe suddenly decides to do something we do not like. I would much rather that we have the chance, whichever side of the argument we fall on, to go out to make the case in a reasoned way. I would rather the wording be carefully crafted in a Public Bill Committee, not cobbled together because Europe suddenly does something we do not like and we say, “Oops, it’s a treaty change. Oops, we need to have a quick referendum.”
	Let us do this at our pace. Let us not be frightened of the answer. I do not know what the answer will be. It might be one that I do not like, but I am prepared to live with it. I, too, have never voted on whether or not we should have joined the Common Market, as my mother would have called it, but I know from talking to people that they feel strongly that it is now time to talk about this matter, because we are dealing with something completely different. I am sick of hearing the word “referendum” touted around when it is popular with the voters and then seeing it kicked into the long grass when it falls into the “too difficult” box. This is not the “too difficult” box.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Anne Main: I am not going to give way to my colleague from the Liberal Democrats, because their speakers can defend themselves tonight. This motion is not in the “too difficult” box, and I am sure that there will be Liberal Democrats who search their conscience and decide to walk through the Lobby with us on a principled motion to give the people the right to have their say.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Anne Main: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman is going to explain the Liberal Democrat position.

Martin Horwood: I have explained our position, but I want to ask the hon. Lady about hers. When the Liberal Democrats, at the time of a fundamental shift in the relationship during the course of the Lisbon treaty, actually proposed an in/out referendum, she voted against it. Why was that?

Anne Main: I ask the hon. Gentleman to join us tonight to say, “This is now what we should be doing.” He may just throw brickbats and not consider what the Liberal Democrats promised the people, but he has a chance to renew that promise tonight. We have a chance tonight to engage with what the people are asking us to engage in. Our leader promised us that we would have a chance to vote on the Lisbon treaty and we voted accordingly, but we did not have it. We have a new chance now.
	This motion is not about reliving history, but it is about looking at how we have engaged with the voters over the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham has got it absolutely right: we have to be principled. For those who have maintained a principled plea to be given the chance, tonight is that chance. If the wording is not quite as some people would like, they should not worry because there will be a chance to craft it in Committee. Hon. Members should not feel that unless they can agree with every little word in the motion they cannot go through the Lobby with us. The wording is only suggested; the principal thing we are voting on tonight is whether we are going to listen to the people and say, “Let’s engage in this argument.” Let us not just park it in the “too difficult” grass, with promises of referendums tomorrow, because they may never come; and if they do come, they may come at a very inappropriate time to make the argument with the British people.

John Cryer: It is good to see the Foreign Secretary still in his place before he dashes off to this urgent, massively crucial and completely unavoidable meeting in Australia that he has to attend. I am sure that this has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding tonight’s vote, and any suggestion that it has is scurrilous. He rightly spoke about scrutiny, but he may recall that when he was an MP under John Major’s premiership the then Government removed European questions and the debates on European orders from the Floor of the House, thus reducing the scrutiny, because things were getting a bit lively at that point. If he will not agree to a referendum, perhaps he will agree to bring European questions and European orders back to the Floor of the House.
	Having got that small point over with, may I say that I have never been a great supporter of referendums? They can be divisive, they have to be treated with extreme caution and they have been used by dictatorial Governments in the past. The criterion for having a referendum is that a Government pass measures that seek to change the power of the ballot box—that is the time to seek a referendum and seek the consent of the British people. This should not be done at any time other than when a Government seek to change the power of the ballot box.
	Since the last referendum in 1975 which, as has been pointed out, was caused by the Wilson Government, we have had the Single European Act, the Maastricht and
	Amsterdam treaties, the growth and stability pact, and the Lisbon and Nice treaties. All those changed the power of the ballot box, most of them—not all—involving huge shifts of power from the democratically elected Governments of western Europe to Brussels and Strasbourg. The Single European Act gave up the veto, which we had been told at the time of the referendum in 1975 would remain permanently. Since then, many of the treaties have shifted perhaps 30 or 40 areas of responsibility from the veto to quality majority voting. For that reason alone, we need a referendum on future membership of the European Union.
	This is not an issue among the political elite of western Europe. There is a justifiable perception among a lot of voters, not only in this country but in other western European countries, that there is a tiny political elite at the apex of the European Union which says, “This doesn’t matter. We don’t want people having their views on Europe tested. We don’t want to have to go out to seek people’s opinions.” That was demonstrated when the Irish people voted against the Nice treaty, as within a day or two the western European Foreign Secretaries issued a communiqué saying, “It’s very nice of you to have made a decision; now go away and make another one. Keep trying until you get it right.” The legislative process in Ireland was actually changed, by a Bill that took a day to get through all the stages in the Dail, in order to gut the process that led to that referendum. They were then able to rig the following referendum and change the view of the Irish people on the Nice treaty.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those antics by our neighbours have increased the cynicism towards Europe and all things European?

John Cryer: Yes, I would agree with that. As I believe we all recognise, there is generally a profound cynicism about the political process, not just in Britain but across western Europe. In this country, there are specific reasons for it, but tonight we have the opportunity to restore a bit of trust in the political process. I disagree completely with the three-line Whip being imposed by all the parties. When the leadership of all three parties acts in that way, it tends to foment that cynicism.
	One of the great truisms of British politics is that when people move from this side of the House to that side of the House they tend to change their views on Europe pretty rapidly. That has fomented cynicism about the political process. Conservative Members have a chance tonight to restore a bit of face by being consistent in their views on Europe. I was not unanimously loyal during my previous eight years in this place when the Labour party was in government—I voted against my party about 84 times. When I went into the Government Lobby, my then Whip, whom I shall not name, greeted me by saying, “Voting Labour again tonight then, John?” I therefore speak as someone who has rebelled in the past and paid the price for it.
	Many Conservatives—I am not talking about the Liberal Democrats because we expect them to be inconsistent—said things about Europe when they went before their selection committees and their electorates and people now expect these things to be upheld tonight. People expect us to be consistent. I suspect that an awful lot of Conservative associations and an awful lot
	of Conservative voters in those constituencies will applaud Conservative MPs who vote for this motion in the Lobby tonight.

Charles Walker: If not now, when?

Dawn Primarolo: You have to keep an eye on the hon. Gentleman. He has very succinct speeches.

Natascha Engel: That is a fabulous speech to follow, so I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish, not as succinctly, to say that this debate is about one thing only: our democratic deficit. It is not a debate about what is good or bad about the EU. We are debating whether we think that people should have a say on EU membership. In the 36 years since people first voted on our continued membership of the then European Economic Community, they have not been given a say, yet the EEC of 1975—an economic and trading bloc—is not the EU of today, which is a political union underpinned by a part-common currency in crisis.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Natascha Engel: I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to give way.
	The architects of the European Union have created something of such size and complexity that they themselves have admitted that it has become too big to fail. At the same time, for most normal people the EU becomes ever more remote and unaccountable. It is a political project that people feel has gone too far, too fast, with many things that affect their daily lives being determined by Brussels and not Westminster. That makes this a matter of sovereignty.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) has said, we have referendums very rarely in this country and only on matters that concern how we govern ourselves. As elected politicians who govern, we have a vested interest in this matter, and because we have a vested interest it is a matter that we should not decide just for ourselves. Over the weekend and in the earlier statement the Government argued that now is not the right time to hold a referendum because of the crisis in the eurozone, but it is precisely that crisis that has demonstrated to us how bound up in Europe we have become politically and economically and how little influence we have over the decisions that are taken.
	The truth is that the “not the right time” argument has nothing to do with markets and everything to do with what people might say. The Government are worried that people might say no, and, as every experienced politician knows, you do not ask the question unless you are sure that you will get the answer you want. No is not the answer that the Government want.
	Last summer, the Government introduced e-petitions to engage and better connect with people and to give them a chance to have their say. The Government promised that any e-petition that gained more than
	100,000 signatures would be taken very seriously by the House. We have welcomed the debates on the riots and on Hillsborough, but when it comes to something that is inconvenient and that the Government do not want to have debated, suddenly now is not the right time. If we pick and choose, we are telling people that politicians will decide what people are and, more importantly, what they are not allowed to have a say on. That is not democracy.
	Yesterday, we celebrated free and democratic elections in Tunisia. Next week we celebrate Parliament week and this year’s theme is stories of democracy. What a terrible shame it would be if today we took one of the most anti-democratic decisions of our generation and denied people a say on something as fundamental as who governs them.

Robert Walter: May I reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House that I shall be voting tonight not in response to a three-line Whip but in what I believe is the national interest?
	I am saddened by some of the comments I have heard in the Chamber today. Since 1960, the Conservative party and Conservative Governments, whether it was Harold Macmillan, Alexander Douglas-Home, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher or John Major, have always believed that our future was in Europe, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister follows in that tradition.
	It was from the embers of the second world war—a Europe torn apart by Germany and Italy—which for many was the second terrible war in a generation after the great war, or the war to end all wars, that the idea of the European Community and European union was born. I believe that European unity was a cause to end all wars—on this continent at least. I campaigned hard in the 1975 referendum for a yes vote and I remember endless arguments with my late father-in-law who told me not to trust the Germans and certainly never to trust the Italians. He rang me up after the vote and said, “I thought I’d better tell you I voted in the referendum yesterday,” and I said, “Oh, yes,” expecting him to tell me that he had voted no. He said, “I voted yes—not for me and probably not for you but for my grandchildren.” His grandchildren are my children and they are grown up now; indeed, they are the same age as many of my colleagues in the House today.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman reminds us that the debate about joining the European Economic Community back in 1974 or 1976 was never just an economic argument. It was precisely the argument about securing peace in Europe that was behind European union, and that was also one of the factors that was put forward in the debate at that time, although I accept that economic motives were the prime issue in that debate.

Robert Walter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—it was a political argument. What I am sad about is that there are those who want to destroy that legacy and the legacy of those who fought and voted for that lasting peace—a Europe in harmony, comfortable with itself
	and respecting differences of culture, language, history and nationality, but confident in its ability to work together.

William Cash: I just want to mention to my hon. Friend that my father was killed in the war in Normandy and I am sure that he, together with all the others, also appreciated that what they were doing was fighting for freedom and for the democracy that is being put at risk by opposition to this motion.

Robert Walter: I hope that that is not correct and I remind my hon. Friend that he and I first met when we were both on a committee of the European Movement, which, of course, had just campaigned for a yes vote in that very referendum.

John Redwood: rose —

Robert Walter: I shall not give way any more.
	The world has shrunk. More than ever, we travel, we trade and we live in each other’s countries. In 1972, this House voted not only to be part of that common European future but to be an architect of its destiny as a full member of the European Community. The European Union is not a perfect form of government, but neither are the British Government, any Department of State or any local government. If that were the case, we would not be here; we would all be wasting our time.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Percy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Walter: I will not give way any more; I really need to get on.
	The European Commission and the European Parliament have ideas and aspirations that sit more than awkwardly with the concept that we all have of a sovereign state. There are those in Brussels who see national Governments and national Parliaments as a nuisance and who think that life would be much simpler if we decided everything at a European level, but thank God we live in a democracy. Thank God we have Members of the European Parliament who are prepared to stand up for the British interest and, more particularly, that we have Ministers and a Prime Minister who can go to Brussels, argue our case and succeed.
	What is it that my colleagues and friends want from any new treaty? Have we not had enough of treaties? Can we not at least make the one that we have work? What would a new treaty do? Would it relegate us to the European Free Trade Association or the European economic area? Would it get us the Norwegian deal? They argue that the EU would have to give us access to the single market—yes, but at what price? Norway does not have a free ride in its access to the single market. It does not contribute to the common agricultural policy but it jolly well pays its share to other areas of the EU budget and it gets absolutely nothing back. What is more, its price for access means that it too implements all EU directives—in fact, it has a better record than us, with 99.6% of EU directives having been implemented by the Norwegian Parliament—but the difference is that it has no Ministers at the table when they are discussed. It has no Commissioner, no parliamentary
	representation in co-decision and it has to accept whatever Brussels sends. It is not even a case of, “Take it or leave it;” it is, “Take it, or else.”
	We cannot blame Brussels and the wicked foreigners for all our woes. To quote the Prime Minister,
	“We are all in this together”.
	Europe needs Britain and Britain needs Europe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary struck the right note earlier. We are in Europe, our history is European and our destiny is European. As far as I am concerned, we are here to stay and I beg my colleagues to reject the motion.

Roger Godsiff: I regret the fact that the Government’s business managers managed to turn inconvenience into a full-scale crisis vote this evening. I regret even more the fact that there is not a free vote across the House tonight. There should have been, and I rather suspect that those on both Front Benches will come to regret the fact that they did not allow a free vote.
	I voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, together with some of my hon. Friends. I will vote tonight in support of a referendum. Some of the suggestions that I have heard, that this debate is a distraction or, as somebody said, an irresponsible distraction, are both arrogant and insulting to the vast majority of the people of this country who feel that their views on Europe are not being heard.
	Ever since the treaty of Rome was signed, its architects have had a clear objective of moving towards a united states of Europe and in doing so they have followed three steps. The first was ever-closer union, political and economic. The Single European Act, which Mrs Thatcher signed, was a massive step in that direction, as was the creation of a single currency. The second aim has been to move relentlessly forward—take two steps forward, a massive great row, go into denial, label objectors mad or worse, take one step back, wait for the fury to subside, then move two steps forward again.
	The third and most important objective has been to avoid whenever possible giving the electorates of Europe a direct say in decision making. If some member states are legally obliged to have referendums, as happened in France and Holland, then the approach has been to play down the importance of the issues, say they are purely technical, just a tidying-up exercise, not something to bother the electorates of Europe. The reason is obvious. We all know that if we ask the people a question, we might get the answer that we do not want.
	The creation of the eurozone is just another attempt to move forward the project of a federal united states of Europe. The creation of the euro was always economic nonsense. There has never in the history of the world been a successful monetary union without a fiscal union as well. It was a house built on quicksand, not a house that caught fire. It does not matter how much money is thrown at it to try to underpin it. It does not matter how much financial scaffolding is put around it. It will fail. It is not me saying this: the markets have already made their decision. They know that the euro is unsustainable. They know that it is built on quicksand. They know it is going to fail, and if the politicians are not on the same wavelength, that is their problem.
	The only way out is full fiscal union. I agree with the Chancellor when he urged the members of the eurozone to move towards that. At least that is logical. But in doing so, members of the eurozone will have to cede all their tax-raising and all their spending powers to the Commission in Brussels. That will be a massive step towards the creation of a united states of Europe. Whether the member countries of the eurozone wish that to happen is a matter for them.
	The reason why so many people are angry in this country and why the opinion polls seems to show that they are anti-Europe is that they feel that nobody is listening to them. That is bad for democracy. Today the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have set out their stalls and said where they stand. They should put that to the electorate and have it debated in the country. That is what democracy is about. At the end, they should allow the people to decide.

Malcolm Rifkind: I am against the motion, in part because I think the timing, given the financial chaos in Europe, is highly inappropriate. But that is not the main reason that I would give to the House as to why the motion is unwise. It purports to give three choices to the House and to the country as a whole—in the European Union, out of the European Union, or renegotiation, but as has been pointed out earlier in the debate, that is not really a third option because it is renegotiation with a view to purely a trade relationship in Europe. That is, in effect, leaving the European Union because it involves no sharing of sovereignty. I fully concede that any membership of the European Union at the end of the day must involve, as it always has done, some willingness to acknowledge that sovereignty has to be shared.

John Redwood: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that the motion refers to trade and co-operation to encompass the current Conservative policy?

Malcolm Rifkind: No, I am sorry, that is not the case because present Conservative policy is about sharing sovereignty in certain areas where it is overwhelmingly in our national interest. When we consider what the real options are, the real debate is not whether we should be in Europe or out of Europe, but what kind of European Union we are prepared to be members of.
	The assumption of this debate and many other debates is that one side or the other will win. We will either have an even closer union or the European Union will ultimately implode. That might be what will happen if the European Union does not use its own common sense and look to see whether there is a third route.

John Baron: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: Not at this moment, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
	There is a third route and we are already partly along that way—that is, an à la carte Europe, where each member state decides what degree of integration it is prepared to accept in view of its own national history, rather like France being a semi-detached member of
	NATO for 30 years because it believed it to be in the French interest, and NATO did not collapse as a consequence.
	I say that we are already part of the way there, because at present, of the 27 member states, only 17 are members of the eurozone. Ten states are not, some because they do not want to be, and some because they could not join even if they wanted to. We are not part of Schengen, nor are the Irish. The neutral countries such as Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Finland, have never been fully involved in defence co-operation because of their neutrality.
	The problem at present is not that there is not an element of à la carte, but that there is a fiction in the European Union that that is purely temporary. That it is a transition and that we are all going to the same destination and the debate is merely about how long it will take us to get there. No, that is not the case. What we need is a European Union that respects the rights both of those who have a legitimate desire, in terms of their own national interest, for closer integration, and those of us who do not choose to go that way. That has to be argued and negotiated, sometimes on the basis of considerable acrimony.

Mark Pritchard: My right hon. and learned Friend talks about renegotiating and repatriating powers. What powers and what timetable does he envisage?

Malcolm Rifkind: As I said, the idea of an à la carte Europe is already partly there, but it should not just be a privilege; it should be a right. What we need, not just for the United Kingdom, but for all the member states, is a European Union where we will not stop France and Germany if they wish to move to closer integration and fiscal union—that ultimately is their business—but nor must they seek to impose a veto on the level of integration that we should have.
	There is an irreducible minimum because, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, a member state cannot simply not participate in the single market, but that does involve substantial sharing of sovereignty in a way that a free trade zone does not. That point does not seem to have been acknowledged by many of the critics. If there is, as we have at present, free movement of labour, that is not consistent with a purist view of national sovereignty, but it is crucially in the interests of the United Kingdom.

Anne Main: rose—

Malcolm Rifkind: I have already given way twice. I am sorry, I cannot give way again without losing my own time.
	Those are the points of the real debate that we must take forward. It so happens that this is not just a theoretical option. There is a strong possibility that because of the chaos in the eurozone, there will be a need for some treaty change. That will require to be agreed unanimously, and that provides my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary with what is likely to be an excellent opportunity to take that debate forward and to argue that if other countries wish to go further, we wish to consider the question
	of the kind of European Union we and perhaps other countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Poland would be content with.
	On that basis, I say to the House that we cannot constrain the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in the incredibly difficult negotiations that will take place. To have a debate that might lead to a referendum on whether Britain will remain in the European Union or leave it entirely is such a massive distraction from the real concerns that this country and the rest of Europe have to address. [ Interruption. ] I am sorry, but I am entitled to my view, just as all my hon. Friends are entitled to theirs.
	I am conscious that many Members wish to speak and so will conclude my remarks. There have been other occasions of this kind when people have had fundamental differences of principle. I recently read a quote that struck me as highly relevant to our debate. It was from a politician who belonged not to the Conservative party, but to the Labour party. In 1957, Aneurin Bevan, a great believer in unilateral disarmament, spoke to a Labour party conference that was likely to carry a resolution in favour of unilateral disarmament. He told his own party:
	“if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications… you will send a British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber... And you call that statesmanship?”
	It was good advice then and remains good advice now.

Ian Davidson: I can think of no other issue where the gap between the political elites and ordinary people in this country is so great. It is not the most important matter the House will ever discuss, but it is the one where that divergence is greatest. This divergence, and the feeling among the population of the country that their views are ignored, breeds and feeds cynicism about politics in general. The most cynical attempt to avoid that popular opinion was used in relation to the constitution that was not a constitution, because if it had been a constitution, it would have to have been put to a referendum. That was a breathtaking piece of cynicism and manipulation. No Member really believes that it was anything other than a means of overcoming the possibility of popular rejection.
	It is therefore beholden on us to take seriously the fact that 100,000 voters have signed an e-petition. It was mentioned earlier that millions of Liberal Democrat voters would reject the proposal in a referendum, but I think that such a view is seriously mistaken, because there are probably no more than 100,000 people prepared to own up to being Liberal Democrat voters, so the number of people who signed the petition is greater than the number of Liberal Democrats in this country.
	I think that disillusionment on this question has also been spread by the false prospectus the Conservatives gave to the country as they ran into the general election. There was a feeling in this country that a Conservative Government would stand up for Britain much more and take a more robust view on European matters, but the fact is that they have sold the jerseys. The overwhelming majority of people who voted for the Conservatives, believing that they would stand up to Europe, are now disillusioned, which is why every registration of public opinion indicates that there is a substantial drift of
	voters from the Conservatives to UKIP on this matter. I give the Conservatives the following advice for their own good: if they want to stop that drift to UKIP, they must stand up for what they said they would do during the general election. If they wish to say that they would like to do those things, but the Liberals are holding them back, they should come forward and say it honestly, rather than saying, “It’s actually much more difficult than we thought and we’re up to all sorts of sophisticated things that you are too thick to understand.” That is effectively what they are saying.
	I am glad that this is not an in/out referendum, because I must confess that I would not have favoured either option. I am not in favour of voting in the referendum to remain in the EU, because that would be seen as a green light to ever-closer union, and I am not willing to be put in a position where the only alternative is to leave the EU, because I do not support that. I believe, as many of my colleagues on the Labour Benches once believed, that there is a third way—the way of reform. I believe that many of those who oppose the motion are doing so under the banner of reform, but are not actually all that serious about reform. They are committed to ever-closer union, but with a little tinkering.
	Therefore, I support the motion because I think that the size of the vote tonight matters as a signal to the country that a substantial number of people are strongly committed to strong renegotiation when compared to those who take the view that it should be business as usual. As for those who say that the time is not yet right, I think that that is a disgraceful argument unless they tell us when the time will be right.

Michael Connarty: It was so close to the Lisbon treaty that I assumed they had read it. Can my hon. Friend tell me where in the Lisbon treaty it says anything other than that. One clause allows an in/out decision, but there is nothing else in the treaty on that?

Ian Davidson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an extra minute.
	I also think that those who argue that this is simply a distraction would never want to discuss it anyway. They argue that it is not the right time or that this is only a distraction, but would they have said otherwise if the motion had been brought forward two weeks ago, or at some other time? I do not think so. They are in fact more interested in being part of the cosy club. This is an important debate, but as I said before, it is not the most important debate the House will ever have, and the EU is not the most important thing we will ever discuss.

Nadine Dorries: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Davidson: For another minute, yes I will.

Nadine Dorries: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why British people are so engaged on this matter is that, in these difficult economic times, when we are giving £25 million a day to Europe, they want to see not only the repatriation of powers, but the repatriation of some of the money?

Ian Davidson: I agree with that. They would like to see that because what we need to do is move on from the debate we are having today. Whenever I see the three
	party leaderships lining up together, I think that they must be wrong, and I think that the vast majority of the public take that view as well. At least there is no conspiracy involving the nationalist parties, because they have not bothered to turn up. We do not know what their view is on whether Scotland would be part of an EU that Britain had already left, because that is one of the things they want to fudge and sweep under the carpet.
	However, if we want out of the CAP, we ought to be discussing how we can do that? If we want to stop paying so much money to Sicilian gangsters and a variety of other crooks across Europe, how do we manage to do that? If we want to provide genuine bilateral support to those who are much poorer than us in eastern Europe, how do we do it without the middle men cutting chunks out of it? The same concern applies to the third world. How do we ensure that other European countries, individuals and gangs are not siphoning off some of that money? If we want to scrap the common fisheries policy and introduce something better, how do we do that? Those are the sorts of debates we need to have. In my constituency, how can we ensure that local people get local jobs without the EU telling us that they must be advertised Europe-wide? That is what we need to discuss.

William Cash: A few months ago the Prime Minister asked me after a debate to write to him about my views on the European Union, so I wrote him a pamphlet called “It’s the EU, stupid.” That was a reference not to him, but to Bill Clinton’s recognition that the economy is at the heart of the issue. In just the same way, I believe fundamentally, as I have set out in the pamphlet—I will quickly encapsulate some of the thoughts it contains—that this is first of all a matter of principle. The referendum issue has been going around since before the Maastricht referendum campaign. I voted yes, as it happens, in 1975, but since then we have seen the accumulation of powers and the broken promises, betrayals and prevarication. The argument is that it is never the right time to deal with these issues, but that is the problem, and the British people feel that they have been betrayed by a failure to deliver on those promises.

Steven Baker: I would have voted yes in 1975, but does my hon. Friend agree that the EU has gone far beyond that which is necessary to guarantee peace and prosperity?

William Cash: Yes, indeed, and I will go further: the EU has created a situation in which it actually damages our economy. That is the problem, and that is the reversal of the situation, with massive over-regulation—£8 billion a year, according to the British Chambers of Commerce—over the past 20 years in this country alone.
	As I said earlier in my interventions on the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, we are running the single market on a deficit that has gone up in the last year alone by as much as £40 billion, so it would be inconceivable for us not to take a rain-check and say, “We cannot just continue with this and pretend that nothing is going on.”
	If ever there was a time to tackle the issue in principle, it is now, and that is what the motion is about: whether there is a case for renegotiation or for leaving the
	European Union. On renegotiation, we must establish the fact in line with the wishes of the people of this country—not because the Whips have said, “You’ve got to do this, that and the other” or, with great respect, because the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary have said so, but because we have a sacred trust, as elected Members of this House, to do what is right, in the interests of the British people as we see it for our constituents, and in the national interest. This is exactly that issue tonight.
	The Prime Minister has given two speeches over the past year or so—one was about rebuilding trust in politics, and the other was about a European policy that we can believe in. I strongly recommend that people tonight, tomorrow or at some point read those speeches again and ask themselves, “What is going on in this debate today?” We know that the Whips have been strongly at work, but I had all that over Maastricht, we have had it over the years and it becomes something that we have to get used to. The reality is that we are doing the right thing for the right reason. That is the point.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he not think that, because the debate has been generated by an e-petition, because it has been made possible by the Backbench Business Committee and because it is an issue that does not divide Members along party lines, it is totally wrong for both party leaders to apply the three-line Whip?

William Cash: I absolutely agree. In fact, I think that three parties are involved, and the point applies to all of them.
	I should like to return to the Prime Minister’s statement today and to test it against what has been going on. He said to us: “Members of my party fought the last election committed to three things,” including, “stopping the passage of further powers to the EU.” The Foreign Secretary, in his article in The Daily Telegraph the day before yesterday, said that he objected to the Lisbon treaty, and he will remember that he, I and many Conservative Members fought, united together, against it line by line—every aspect of it—and fought for a referendum. Yet, we have been watching the implementation of further powers—I do not want to get into the semantics or legal niceties of the word “powers”, because I know them as well as anybody else in the House—and every aspect of that Lisbon treaty day in, day out, and many of the problems that we are now experiencing are a result of its implementation.
	The Prime Minister went on to say that we have instituted “a referendum lock to require a referendum, by law, for…such transfer of powers”, and I have a ten-minute rule Bill on that tomorrow. It would reverse section 4 of the European Union Act 2011, which I opposed on the Floor of the House. I see the Foreign Secretary smiling, because he knows what I am going to say. The real test, as I said to the Prime Minister during his statement, is about fundamental change—constitutional, political and economic. That is the test that needs to be applied, and it was endorsed—by the way—by the Lords Constitution Committee only last year.
	Fiscal union, of which I shall explain more tomorrow, is such a fundamental change, but the Government quite deliberately ensured through section 4(4)(b) of the 2011 Act that there would be no referendum when the provision in question applied, in their terms, only to the eurozone and not to us directly. At the very time when we were being told that, however, I and others objected because we felt that such a provision would affect us enormously. We were told that it would not, but now we are told day in, day out how much it does affect us, and that therefore we must not do what we are doing tonight, for the very simple reason that, somehow or other, it will undermine our economic activity with the European Union. That is absolute rubbish. The reason why we are in such difficulties with deficit reduction is that there is no growth, and there is no growth because 50% of all our economic laws come from Europe. It also accounts for 40% of our trade, a point that the Foreign Secretary made, but the fact is that we have a massive trade deficit, as I have already described.
	The EU is a failed project. It is an undemocratic project. This vote—this motion—is in the national interest, because it is for democracy, for trust in politics and for the integrity of this House.

Kate Hoey: I am not sure when the Foreign Secretary has to leave, but he is going to a very important conference, the Commonwealth conference in Australia. Many people in this country believe that the Commonwealth was sold out when we joined the Common Market, and I hope he remembers that by 2050 the 55 members of the Commonwealth will have 38% of the global labour force, while the European Union, with its 27 members, will have only 5%. I hope he goes with that figure in his head to the Commonwealth conference, because then we might actually see much more attention paid to the Commonwealth.
	This could have been a wonderful day for Parliament, for democracy and for the new regime—on which the coalition have to be congratulated—of the Backbench Business Committee, with its many keen members. This debate was brought about by a process involving people outside, in the United Kingdom—and let us stop talking about “Britain”, please, because when we do we ignore Northern Ireland, which when it comes to a referendum is going to be very important.
	Let us not forget, as many Members have said, that this issue has reached us today not only because of the 100,000 e-petition signatories, but because of the many organisations that have brought together different types of petition and written to people. It is not just about e-petitions.
	Millions of people out there are watching what we are doing today, but the three party leaders, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) referred, have it seems almost—I am not sure whether I am allowed to use the word—colluded to ensure that Members do not have a free vote. I am therefore so pleased to hear tonight not just from my own side, but from people on the opposing Benches how many Members are prepared to say, “Party Whips are fine, because of course we are elected from our party, but sometimes the issue is more important than the party.” This issue is more important than the party, and that is why we have so much cross-party involvement in and support for the motion.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: No, I will not, at this point—and not to you.
	A number of points have been made, and I want to make just a few short ones. On the idea that the issue is a distraction, I have to say that the European Union is the thread that runs though every part of every law that we make in this country, and we must recognise that and ask people whether we have gone too far.
	The Foreign Secretary talked about repatriation of powers, which I want to see, but, on the threat of a referendum hanging over the Foreign Secretary, we know that the Commission hates referendums, and I remember him arguing—I was on his side—for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, when he stated how much more strength it would give to the elbow of the then Foreign Secretary. We want to repatriate powers, and, if the rest of the European Union knew that the British public were sick, sore and tired of the money being spent on Europe, of the bureaucracy, of the corruption and of all that, they would be much more likely to negotiate the repatriation of them.

Sheryll Murray: Does the hon. Lady agree that the one industry in this country that has suffered for the past 30 years under the European Union is the fishing industry? A referendum would right the wrong that has been done to that industry, and the destruction that it has suffered over the past 30 years.

Kate Hoey: I do not understand why my party, which wants a change in the fishery policy, are not allowing a free vote tonight at the very least, never mind supporting a referendum.
	I get a bit fed up on this side of the House—I have said this before—about the way the media paint the matter as always being about Tory splits, attacks on Cameron, Tory diversions, and so on when a huge number of Labour supporters in this country want a referendum. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was rather ill advised to impose a three-line Whip. We need to have this debate out in the open.
	What is everyone afraid of? It is ridiculous of those who are not in favour of a referendum to say that this is not the right time, because we all know that we would not have the legislation in place until the end of 2012, or probably 2013. We could not possibly have the necessary White Paper, or the details of what would go into the referendum until 2014, so no one should accept the reason that this is not the right time.
	What causes the lack of confidence felt by the leaders of the main parties who are afraid of a referendum? We must choose whether to integrate fully into a pan-European system of government based in Brussels, or to seek a more international future based on trade and co-operation, not just with the EU, but with the rest of the world. It is time to stop being little Europeans; we must be internationalists. We have all had the Whips on our backs over the years. We have all survived, and many of us are still here. Despite what they have said, it is important that right hon. and hon. Members do what they think is right, what is right for their constituents, and what is right for the country.

Jake Berry: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee, and particularly my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who is not in his place, on securing this debate. It is important, and the strength of support behind the online petition shows that people in this country care about it. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Backbench Business Committee.

Paul Blomfield: Some hon. Members have cited the feeling of people in this country. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ipsos MORI conducts regular polling on the most important issues to people and that this month, as in several months, this issue is the 22nd most important, with only 3% of the population believing that it is?

Jake Berry: I am aware of that polling, and that is why I do not support today’s motion.

John Hemming: I understand that the e-petition has only 36,000 signatures, but a paper petition has more than 100,000 signatures.

Jake Berry: In my home town of Liverpool people would be burned for witchcraft for signing anything on the internet. The general petition had 100,000 signatures.
	I am constantly told that the EU is not a doorstep issue, but when one scrapes the surface and goes out and talks to people, as I did in my constituency last weekend, one finds immense anger. People in my area regard the EU as remote, undemocratic and, more often than not, working against our national interest, instead of in favour of the UK. There is a perception among the people I speak to out there that Brussels is elite and is ramming through a federalist agenda while mere voters, such as people in this country, are onlookers. On the rare occasions that we have within the EU been given a chance to make our views heard, if we have voted the wrong way, Europe has simply dismissed our views.
	Five of the last eight referendums in the EU have been against a proposition. When countries and people—for example, Ireland—vote against a proposition, they are told to vote again until the right result is achieved or, as with the EU constitution, we are told that it has only been fiddled around the edges with a change in only a few words or a couple of paragraphs, or that it has been changed and is only a treaty so there is no right to a referendum. That is why there is so much interest in today’s debate. The hon. Member for Vauxhall made a good point when she said the issue is not party political, or a matter of left or right, or not even Eurosceptics versus Europhiles. There is a huge appetite in this country for a genuine conversation about where our relationship with the EU should go.
	That brings me to my views on the motion, which I will not support. It is absolutely right and proper to have this debate, and I am delighted that we are having it. I take this opportunity to put on record the fact that we must have a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with Europe, but we do not live in a bubble, and we must pay attention to the crisis in the eurozone and to politics in our own country. The crisis in the
	eurozone is like a spark in Pudding lane. If we do not continue to support member states in supporting the euro and in sorting out the Greek problem, the fire will rip through the City of London and our entire economy. A vote today to put in doubt our membership of the EU for up to 18 months would fuel market speculation, fatally wound the eurozone and its economies, and have exactly the same effect here in the UK.
	My second reason for opposing the motion is that the mainstream policy, which is supported by my party, to repatriate powers is the right way forward. Now is not the time to tell people that we are taking our bat and ball home. We must fight from within the EU to repatriate powers. There is a coalition behind that point of view beyond this Chamber. The UK Independence party fought the last general election on a policy of withdrawing from the European Union, but it did not win the election. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats together won with a mainstream policy of repatriation.

Mark Reckless: Did UKIP not win more votes in more constituencies than the number by which we did not achieve a majority? My hon. Friend spoke about repatriating powers, but that is not Government policy. We heard the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary refer to their policy, but it is still to be agreed with our coalition partners.

Jake Berry: It is the Government’s policy. We heard the Prime Minister give commitments today on the referendum lock and future treaty negotiations. I and, I hope, my constituents take comfort from the words from the Front Bench. I will not support the motion today, but I am relying on those commitments, and I and my constituents want them to be honoured.

Gisela Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jake Berry: I am sorry, I do not have time to give way.
	Failure to honour commitments on the repatriation of powers and the referendum lock will lead to further erosion of trust in this Government and this Chamber. I hope that the Government will continue to look at repatriating those powers.

Wayne David: Let me be clear: I do not support today’s motion because I believe that it is in Britain’s national interest for us to be involved in the European Union. As has been widely acknowledged by many in this debate and elsewhere, half of Britain’s exports go to the rest of the European Union, and 3.5 million jobs in this country are dependent on our trade with our partners in the European Union. My own constituency is a former mining constituency where manufacturing is now very important. If Britain were to withdraw from the European Union, or even substantially to renegotiate its terms of membership, it would be bad economic news for the people I represent.

Andrew Percy: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, the argument is not about whether we are in or out of Europe but whether we have a referendum. If he is so convinced of his argument, why is he frightened to allow the British people to express their view?

Wayne David: I believe that our place is firmly inside the European Union. We had a vote in this country to join the European Union, and I see this as a natural progression.
	Several Members have referred to those huge countries, Norway and Switzerland, and said that Britain could have a similar relationship with the European Union. I would make two points about that. First, neither of those countries is a major trading nation, whereas the United Kingdom is.

John Redwood: A very large number of jobs in China depend on exporting goods to the European Union. China is not a member of the European Union, so how do those jobs survive?

Wayne David: The crucial thing is what happens to the jobs of people in this country. Many of the inward investors who come to this country from the United States of America do so because we are an integral part of the single market. If one puts in question our membership of the single market, one puts in question the economic viability of this country.
	Secondly, with regard to Norway and Switzerland, let us not forget that although those countries have a good trading relationship with the European Union, the rules that it applies to them are imposed on them, whereas we are in the single market—an integral part of that market—and have a full say on the rules that apply to everyone.
	The real question is not whether we support the European Union but what kind of Europe we want in future. The European Union that I want to see—as, I believe, do most people in this country—is not about uniformity and centralisation but is based on the principle of subsidiarity, whereby decisions are made as close to the people as possible. We want a European Union in which the single market—a single market that works to Britain’s national advantage—is completed. If that is to happen, it is no good our being on the sidelines moaning and groaning; we have to be there, ensuring that the European Union always works to our national benefit.
	The European Union should not just be about a single market for business—it should also be a social Europe for people. The social Europe agenda is very important. Unlike the right-wing Eurosceptics, I believe that the European Union should offer something tangible for ordinary working people. Similarly, it is important for us to be concerned about the environment. Who in their right mind, these days, can believe for one moment that individual countries—medium-sized nation states—can successfully tackle the environmental problems that we face? We have to work together with other people, with other countries throughout the world, and, yes, inside the European Union.
	It is also important that we address such issues as industrial policy. We must realise that we need to ensure that our small and medium-sized businesses develop over the whole of the European Union and that we need joint policies to ensure that there is maximum benefit.

Sheryll Murray: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he will not let the British people have a say so that they can decide that they want to support the kind of European Union that he seems to support?

Wayne David: I respectfully point out that there are such things as election manifestos. The Labour party, for example, has made it clear that this is the kind of Europe we want, and the kind of Europe which, if we are in power before too long, as I think we will be, we want to help to create.
	We have heard a lot about money going from the United Kingdom to the European Union. Yes, there is a relatively small membership fee, but we do not hear about the fact that £1 billion of European regional development fund money that has been allocated to the hard-pressed regions of England is not being spent because of Government public expenditure cuts. Hard-pressed regions such as Rotherham, Doncaster, Sheffield, Preston, Scarborough, Barnsley and many others are losing out on European money because of the Government’s ideology. We want to make sure that that money is put to good use. We want to make sure that we have a pragmatic approach to the European Union and do not put blinkered ideology above all else. I am afraid that many people in this debate do precisely that.
	Above all, if there is to be economic rehabilitation of this country, it is absolutely imperative that we have a growth strategy not only here in the United Kingdom but in the European Union. Forty per cent of our trade is with our eurozone partners. One of the great ironies is that our Prime Minister believes in a very strict austerity-based economic policy, so his greatest economic soulmate is Chancellor Merkel. The European Union as a whole, and the eurozone in particular, needs a growth strategy. It is no good having austerity, austerity, austerity; we also need a growth strategy that will create the kind of demand that we need for prosperity for the future.
	The real debate that we face in this country is not about whether we are in the European Union or out of the European Union; it is about what kind of Europe we want to see.

Philip Hollobone: The big mistake that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has made is to believe that Euroscepticism is a right-wing phenomenon. I have news for him: Euroscepticism is a growing movement, with people of all persuasions—right, left and middle—getting increasingly fed up with how this country is treated by the European Union. The proof of that is some of the petitions that came to the Backbench Business Committee and that stimulated today’s debate. He is going down a blind alley if he thinks that this is just a right-wing cause.
	I have the privilege to represent the residents of the borough of Kettering.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman says that people are concerned about how they are being treated by the European Union, and that may or may not be so. Does he accept, however, that the European Union is not some distant organisation over which we have no say? We are a powerful member state in the European Union, and we send MEPs, Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers there on our behalf. If we are not getting what we ought to out of the European Union, is not that due as much to how we are represented in Brussels as to anything else?

Philip Hollobone: Many of us would like the European Union to be even more distant than it is. The problem is that its tentacles creep into all aspects of the British way of life. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that there are people in this country, from right, left and middle, who think it is outrageous that over the next five years, in this current Parliament, our membership fee will be £41 billion.

Nadine Dorries: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Hollobone: I will give way when I have told my hon. Friend that in the previous Parliament the membership fee was £19 billion; it has more than doubled.

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) touched on this point. If the House voted yes tonight, then when our Foreign Secretary, Prime Minister and Chancellor went to negotiate with our European partners, they would take with them the threat of the loss of £45 billion and would perhaps be treated slightly differently in the negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

Philip Hollobone: I do agree. They could not really treat us much worse.
	From my perspective and that of my constituents, whom I have the privilege to represent, the EU is getting its hands on more and more aspects of the British way of life. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) spoke about the effect on this country’s fishing industry, which has been destroyed by our membership of the European Union. Our membership fee has more than doubled. Nine out of every 10 jobs in this country go to foreign migrants, most of whom come from the European Union. These issues are not of concern only to right-wing people; they are of concern to every person in this land.
	This debate is exposing an increasing disconnect between our constituents—the residents we struggle to represent—and the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, who have tried to deny debate on this issue. One of the qualities of the Backbench Business Committee is that it chooses subjects for debate in this House that the Government would not otherwise allow. That is why the Backbench Business Committee chose this subject. We would not be having this debate if we had left it up to Her Majesty’s Government.
	I have a confession for the House: I do not believe in ever closer union. I think it is wrong in principle and I think the British people do as well. I have another confession for the House: I believe that Britain would be better off out of the European Union altogether. I do not expect a majority in this House to agree with that, but I am privileged to put that on the record on behalf of my constituents in Kettering. I believe that if we were to have a referendum on in or out, most of my constituents would vote to leave because they have had enough.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman think we would be better off without the European arrest warrant, which brought home 145 suspects last year to face criminal charges in this country, and without Europol, which cracked the world’s largest online pornography ring last year?

Philip Hollobone: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman and his Liberal Democrat colleagues are forcing this country to not have the right policy on Europe. If he wants to talk to me and other Members about justice issues, why does his party not do the decent thing and let us come out of the European convention on human rights? There are prisoners in this country whom we cannot repatriate to their country of origin because they claim spurious family life issues, which keep them here.

Michael Connarty: I hate to continue the process of lecturing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) did not like, but it is the Council of Europe, not the EU, that set the convention. In 1949, 49 countries came together to bring about human rights for all in Europe.

Philip Hollobone: With the increasing ratchet of the terms and conditions of European Union membership, that is now a condition of membership for new entrants to the club.

John Hemming: I do not agree with ever closer union, but I do believe in remaining in the EU and will oppose the motion.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to do that. Thanks in part to his good offices, we are having this debate about the future of Britain and Europe, which we would not be having without the Backbench Business Committee.

Emma Reynolds: If so many people in our country want to leave the European Union, why did the only party to advocate such a thing, the UK Independence party, get only 3% of the vote in the last general election?

Philip Hollobone: In my election literature in Kettering and in my campaign speeches and hustings, I made it quite clear that I am in favour of Britain leaving the European Union, and that if there were a referendum I would vote to leave. The majority over Labour in Kettering went up quite substantially as a result. The problem with the European issue at general elections is that there are a lot of other issues to discuss and it gets lost in the noise, in part because of the establishment view on the European Union, which often suppresses public opinion on this issue.
	What has most worried me in the course of the past week is the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government. I know that we cannot talk about the amendments that never happened, but one of those amendments called for a White Paper on how this country would repatriate powers from the European Union. Her Majesty’s Government were not even able to support that. Is it any wonder that, on the ConservativeHome website today, a poll suggests that two thirds of Conservative party members do not believe that the Government have any intention of repatriating powers from Europe? I have to say to those on Her Majesty’s Government’s Front Bench tonight, “Shame on you.”

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). He made a point about the European convention on human rights and was corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The convention has nothing to do with the European Union and we should not confuse our concepts. The hon. Gentleman also talked about a membership fee. I do not know why he considers our contribution to the European Union to be a fee. The European Union is a political, geographical and economic area, and we play a part in all three aspects. The Foreign Secretary was quite right to say that because of our involvement in the European Union, we have influence with Syria, are able to negotiate with Iran and have greater power.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) has stayed in the Chamber, because he was perfectly right in his short history lesson. He used the eloquent phrase that the European Union, starting with the Common Market, began from
	“the embers of the second world war”.
	He was perfectly right about that. He also talked of sovereignty, which keeps popping up in this debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) referred to sovereignty shared. When Ted Heath took us into the European Community, he talked of a “pooled sovereignty”. That is as true today as when he said it.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman also talked about various aspects of the European Union, such as Ireland and Austria being neutral states. The essence of the European Union is unity in diversity. We may have different views and perspectives, but we are united in that economic, political and geographical space.
	We have talked about trade and the single market. The Conservative party is a party of trade and of the single market. The Prime Minister mentioned saying in his discussions on Sunday that the single market would always stay with the 27 member states. He was perfectly right to say that.
	I have to take issue with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is no longer in his place—that is not his fault because he sat here for long enough. When I heard his arguments about the deficit and Europe, I wondered what he was talking about. Does he want a McKinley tariff wall? Does he want to stop people buying Volkswagens, Audis, Fords made in Germany, or iPads, which are made not in America but in China? What does he want in a free-trade area, where there is the free movement of goods and people? How can we go back to the era of tariff walls?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman can sit down because I am not giving way to him.
	Teesside is the third largest port in our country. We face out to Europe and we export to Europe. The point has been made many times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), that 50% of our exports go to Europe. Why did Nissan come to Sunderland? It is because it has the Tees and so can export to Europe. Many years ago, I heard Hilary Marquand say that in
	Europe we take in each others’ washing. That is perfectly true. We trade among ourselves and that trade is a rising tide that, as John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, “lifts all boats”.
	The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) touched on a significant point, which I put to the Prime Minister. He mentioned that the 17 eurozone members at the weekend elected their own president, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The 17 members of the European Union that are in the eurozone will have their own meetings, outwith the 27 countries of which we are a member. Mr Van Rompuy said:
	“Rest assured that we will narrowly and closely inform all the preparation of the summits we shall have in the eurozone, and we shall advise of the results.”
	As I said carefully in my question to the Prime Minister, Mr Van Rompuy will have Germany on one side and France on the other, so where will we be? We have opted for a two-tier Europe and we have opted out. I am sure that the Prime Minister will do all that he can—

Nigel Evans: Order. Martin Horwood.

Martin Horwood: This is an important debate. In a sense, I commend the 100,000 people who brought it about for bringing these issues into the open, not least because it has allowed Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) to find their eloquent, pro-European voices. Many of us are perhaps guilty of having let the Eurosceptics dominate this area for far too long.

Stephen Phillips: I think that the 100,000 people who signed the e-petition would like an answer to a very simple question: the Liberal Democrats promised an in or out referendum, so why are they not supporting one tonight?

Martin Horwood: The hon. and learned Gentleman has anticipated my next sentence. There has been a lot of talk about manifestos in this debate, so I will tell the House exactly what the Liberal Democrat manifesto said. It stated:
	“Liberal Democrats…remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”
	We support that now, we supported it at the general election and we supported it at the time of the Lisbon treaty, when such a fundamental change was actually being discussed. What is more, we put the matter to a vote of the House at that time, and many hon. Members who are now rising in criticism voted against it, including the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and, actually, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who succinctly asked earlier, “If not now, when?” Well, the answer was then, and I am afraid he missed the chance.

Bernard Jenkin: I recall that debate about referendums at the time of the Lisbon treaty. One got the impression that the Liberal Democrats wanted to say they were in favour of a referendum but not vote for the amendment
	that might actually create one. It was a cynical manoeuvre and just the kind of thing that has brought the House into disrepute with the British people.

Martin Horwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I have with me the list of how Members voted on our proposal for an in/out referendum at the time when we said it was appropriate, and I do not think his name is on the list of the Ayes. A few Labour Members did break ranks, however.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: I am sorry, I will not give way again, otherwise I will be out of time.
	May I also remind some Conservative Members of what was promised in their own manifesto? It promised that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power or competences would be subject to a referendum lock. Of course, they actually got that in the European Union Act 2011, which we all voted for only a matter of weeks ago.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Martin Horwood: No, I will not, I am sorry.
	Let us look at some of the options on offer in the motion. We have the renegotiation option, which, frankly, is a fiction. What kind of negotiation would take place if we actually tried to do that? What price would Monsieur Sarkozy or Frau Merkel extract in those negotiations for the disruption and risk that would be posed to the working of the Union? Why would the renegotiation succeed if the other 26 member states did not support it, and why would they support it if the only issue of debate was Britain’s terms of membership? That is why it is such a nonsense to extract renegotiation from any other fundamental shift in relationships that would be happening at the time.

Stephen Phillips: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Martin Horwood: I am sorry, I have taken my two interventions.
	What I believe all factions of Eurosceptics are really calling for in this debate is withdrawal. That is what they really believe in, let us be honest about it. They perhaps want membership of the European economic area, maybe without the complexities of European Councils or the political complexities of the European Parliament, and I assume without complexities such as the border controls of the Schengen agreement. Let me tell them that there is good news for them. There is one very beautiful country that has achieved that exalted status. One country is a beacon for the Eurosceptics. One country is a member of the European economic area but not of the European Union or Schengen. It is Liechtenstein. That is the level of influence that the Eurosceptics are demanding for this country. They would give up our influence on the European market and our influence as a member of the EU on negotiations from climate change to world trade. They would condemn us to the sidelines of Europe and do profound damage to the interests of this country.
	I am old enough to remember a Europe where military, communist and fascist dictatorships outnumbered democracies. One of the greatest achievements of the European Union is that we have between us—27 sovereign states and 500 million people—created a peaceful, democratic federation of which we, as Britons and as Europeans, should be profoundly proud. I am very proud of that. I believe that this is the wrong motion at the wrong time, calling for a referendum that would not work and that would do profound damage to Britain’s national interests, and I think we should throw it out tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Please resume your seats. We have had 23 speakers so far, and considerably more Members than that still wish to come into the debate. To accommodate as many as we possibly can, the time limit is being reduced to four minutes, still with injury time for two interventions.

Frank Field: I want to address the politics of this question, and in doing so pose the question why this issue, above all issues, has a sulphurous effect on our politics. I also wish to thank Ministers for getting us off the hook tonight by imposing a three-line Whip, which disguises the changing politics in the House since I have been a Member and signals that we need to rethink our position.
	Why does Europe have such an evil, sulphurous influence on our politics? I am not nearly as hopeful as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who thinks that we are all sailing into the sunshine. Given the stresses caused by the stupidity of a single currency, I worry about what will happen to democracies in mainland Europe as countries’ living standards are forced down in an attempt to make their budgets balance.
	The real reason why Europe has such a sulphurous impact on our politics is that, as we now know from the records, there has been an exercise in deceit from the word go. We know that Ted Heath, in presenting it to the British people as merely a common market, was signing up to the political project that we see now. We need not just dwell on the origins of the problem, because in the previous Parliament my party’s Government said that they would offer a referendum on the constitution. Of course, what we did not notice was that they were going to decide whether it was a constitution, and they decided that it was not. They said that they would have a referendum on it, but then said, “Oh, it’s rather too late now for the people to have such a vote.” Over the years, there has been a growth in cynicism among the electorate about whether we as parliamentarians are ever going to deal seriously with the issue, and that is what we ought to address tonight.

Graham Stuart: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very fair-minded, so I put it to him that there is a massive difference between the Labour Government’s promise on the constitution/Lisbon treaty and the Conservative party’s leadership saying, once the cheque had been cashed and the treaty ratified, that holding a
	referendum on it was pointless. It was not a betrayal, it was recognition of the betrayal carried out by the Labour party.

Frank Field: I disagree with that. Part of the reason for rearranging our procedures in the House and giving the Backbench Business Committee more power was to try to strike a new relationship with the electorate. What has happened? We are now having a debate that the Government presumably did not want us to have, and they are railroading their Members into supporting them with a three-line Whip. The same is happening on our side of the House.
	The truth is that the Government have scored an own goal. The second big change in the House in the years I have been here, along with the cancerous effect of Europe on our democracy in this country, is that the Conservative party has changed radically. People watching the debate tonight need only look at the number of Conservative Members who wish to participate and the number of Labour Members who wish to participate. When I first came here, if someone raised the issue of Europe regularly they were cast as being slightly bonkers or very bonkers. Now we see that the Conservative party has genuinely changed on the issue. Thanks to the Government’s ham-fisted approach in imposing a three-line Whip, the country will not see how significant that change has been and how in tune the Conservative party now is with both Conservative and Labour voters in the country.
	I make a plea to Members on my own side of the House. We are getting it wrong on the issue of the representation of England and appear to be a party controlled by our Scottish colleagues. Increasingly, the question will be how England is represented in this Parliament, and so far we are on the wrong side of that debate. Again tonight, by trying to force Members into the Lobby in support of the Government stance, we are in danger of alienating many Labour voters.
	When I first stood for election, the turnout was 85%. Last time, it was 60%. How have we managed to turn off 25% of the electorate? It comes down to our conduct as politicians. We were going to make a small move by having debates that we, Back Benchers, could control, but the Government decided it would be better to clobber us with—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Bernard Jenkin: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who has long made measured contributions to such debates, but I want to draw attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway), who is not in the Chamber. He made the speech of the night so far by bringing his integrity and judgment to the fore at the expense of his political office in the Government. The House should respect him especially for that.
	The fact is that this debate is beginning to show a pattern. Members who reflect the widely held public sentiment that our relationship with the European Union is not quite right and that something needs to change are all in favour of a referendum, whether that means a modest renegotiation or, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) says, leaving the EU
	altogether. Members who have spoken against the motion are determined to keep the relationship the same, at least for the time being.
	I fully respect my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who says that he wants to repatriate powers, but as with St Augustine and chastity, he wants repatriation, but not yet. We know that public opinion overwhelmingly shows a strong sentiment for a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU. Unfortunately and sadly for the House, on an occasion when we could reflect our voters’ genuine concerns on this vexed subject, which has riven politics and both parties over many years, we will vote perhaps 4:1 against what we know most of our constituents would prefer.

Angie Bray: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the country is undoubtedly interested in all matters EU, it is probably more interested in issues such as growth and jobs? Does he also accept that a referendum at this time would simply create uncertainty, which would hardly be conducive to attracting the foreign investors that we need to help with growth and jobs?

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, but this issue has come to the fore because it is about not only democracy and consent, but growth and jobs. If the coalition came into being for anything, it was for the deficit reduction programme. That is its raison d’être. It might not have escaped her notice that that programme is in trouble, because the economy is not growing. There are many reasons for that—the US, the crisis in the eurozone, and our country’s indebtedness and excessive taxation—but one fundamental reason is that we are overburdened with European regulation. That is why a majority of businessmen in this country now say that the advantages of the single market are outweighed by the disadvantages.

Neil Parish: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I spent 10 years in the European Parliament and watched powers transferred from Westminster to Brussels, making business more expensive and introducing more regulation. If we want to free up our economy and move forward, we need substantially to renegotiate. The motion gives us a chance to send that message to the Government and to strengthen Ministers’ hands when they go to Europe to do so.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.
	We know from experience that we cannot rely even on the assurances given to us by our European partners. In 1992, we thought we had opted out of what was then called the social chapter. We thought that would protect us from the working time directive, but by the end of that Parliament the EU had circumvented the opt-out in typical fashion: it used a different treaty base to force the directive on to our statute book, against the wishes of our Parliament, by making it a health and safety programme.
	The same thing is happening with the agency workers directive, which the Government have bitterly opposed because they know that it will price more young people
	out of the labour market. We now have above-average youth unemployment in this country when it used to be below-average.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have given way twice.
	The same thing is happening in the regulation of the City of London. If there is one thing that we should never have agreed to in principle, it is that the European Union and Michel Barnier should take over the regulation of the City—our biggest single tax generator. That was driven by a misplaced notion that Bonn, Frankfurt, Paris and the City should be given equal status as global financial centres. That would be disastrous for the City.
	We should oppose the Tobin tax on principle, because at the end of the day, it is another tax that takes money out of the pockets of ordinary people, but you wait, Mr Deputy Speaker, the financial transactions tax proposed by the EU will be forced through on some spurious treaty basis.

Stuart Bell: indicated  assent .

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) agrees that that will be forced through on a spurious basis to cover the City. To coin a phrase, we can’t go on like this. Now that the EU is moving into a phase in which huge decisions, such as the decisions of the 17 on fiscal union, are being taken without the requirement of a British signatory on any treaty, we are losing the veto, which was the foundation of our EU membership and which made it acceptable.
	Therefore, it is now time to renegotiate. It is urgent for our economy. If we need a referendum to force the Government’s hand, that is what I will vote for.

Gisela Stuart: About halfway through this evening’s debate, it might be helpful to remind the House that the motion states:
	“That this House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum”.
	Do hon. Members remember national referendums? All three parties promised one in their 2005 election manifestos, and each came up with its unique way of reneging. The motion states that the referendum should be
	“on whether the United Kingdom should
	(a) remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
	(b) leave the European Union; or
	(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.”
	I must confess that when I first read that, I thought it would be extraordinarily difficult for anyone to disagree with a single word of it, whether they were for or against the EU.

Edward Leigh: On the subject of reneging on promises, is not the crux of the matter this: if we live in a democracy, the people should have a voice?

Gisela Stuart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, whatever people think about referendums—whether they think they are good or bad—the political parties on both sides of the House have started to promise them, but once in government, they come up with incredibly ingenious ways of changing their minds.
	I recommend that the one third of hon. Members who were not here in 2008 watch the Foreign Secretary’s speech on Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008—the Foreign Secretary mentioned that it is on YouTube. It was a brilliant speech. It was so funny I even bought a copy. It is quite interesting to see why he has changed his mind. For an illustration of a 180° turn, watch that speech.
	European Union debates become kitchen sink debates. Rather than put arguments on the substance of the debate, hon. Members put arguments for or against. For the Lib Dems, returning one criminal to the UK becomes the reason why we need an EU-wide arrest warrant and criminal justice system; on the other hand, the EU is bad because one old lady is run over in a constituency in the north-east because of the working time directive.
	Let us for a moment forget about that and talk about the nature of democracy and the nature of democracy in the House. For better or worse, the House has decided that it should become a far more participatory democracy. We have said that we will ask the people much more and have such things as e-petitions. If we are to have e-petitions, we had better start taking them seriously. We cannot say, “Some are more frivolous than others. If they suit us, we’ll take them on board; and if they don’t, we’ll knock them on the head,” because they are all serious.
	The introduction of the Backbench Business Committee was good for democracy in the House, but there are things that we cannot do—the Prime Minister’s statement, which was one of the weakest I have ever heard from a Prime Minister returning from a European Council, showed the weakness of the changes made. We no longer have pre-European Council debates, whereas previously we would have had a day to discuss it; the Foreign Affairs Committee, as I understand it, no longer visits one of the troika countries during the six-month period of a presidency; and we have no specific debates on the EU, and whenever anybody wants to discuss it, we write them off as narrow-minded little Englanders who just want to get out, but it might be that they do not like the current arrangements or that they want someone to make the case for them.
	It is presumptuous of the House to think that it knows what the people would say. We should not take for granted what the people would say. Even if I were to accept the Government’s argument that now is not the time, what is the case against having a referendum at the same time as the EU elections in 2014? I assume that for once—it has not happened since I have been around—we would have a European election during which we actually talked about Europe. We could have a referendum on such an occasion. In the name of democracy and having trust in the people, which we all say that we do, we should vote for the motion tonight, because if politicians do not trust the people, why on earth should the people trust the politicians?

John Redwood: There have been many powerful speeches already rightly saying that this debate is about democracy. Democracy is fundamental to the House—the mother of Parliaments, an example to the world—which has been through a bad time. It has been humbled by its failure to listen carefully enough to the people and because too many powers of self-government have been needlessly given away to Brussels. The people not only want us to listen, to have this great debate and to have a free vote to express their opinions and views, but would like to feel that the people in this House, charged with the duty of governing, have the power to govern. They believe that the Government should come here and answer to us and that we, from both sides of the House, should hold them to account. If they do a good job, the public reward them in a general election, and if they do a bad job, they sack them. However, what we now see happening, because there is too much unaccountable European power, is the breakdown of the fabric of consent that is fundamental to a democracy.
	If hon. Members were to go to Greece today, they would see what happens when that consent starts to break down. Rich Greeks now think that their Government have no right to tax them because they are on autopilot from Europe and they do not like what it is doing, and poor Greeks think that the Government have no right to remove some of their benefits because they think, again, that they are on autopilot from Brussels. In Portugal, Ireland or Slovakia, we see that the European mess can change Governments—regardless, almost, of what the people think—but that when the people put in a new Government, it makes absolutely no difference to the policy that the country is following, because it is all on autopilot and has been preordained by the IMF, the bankers and, above all, the EU bureaucrats and assembled member states.
	We need to ensure that we—those of us with a heart and a conscience—send a loud message to our constituents tonight that we are democrats, that we think that the public were right to demand this debate, that we admire the Prime Minister for making it possible through the petition system and that we would like the Whips to withdraw so that a proper expression of opinion can be given. We want our Government to understand that if too many powers are taken away, we will no longer have the authority or opportunity to govern. Already, we have to say too often to our constituents, “I cannot help you with that because it is a European directive. I cannot assist you with this because it is an unaccountable European programme.” We can no longer change the law in the way that we wish because it is preordained by some Brussels decision.
	This House was great when every law that applied to the British people was fought over in this Chamber and in Committee and satisfied the needs of the majority. This House was great when the public knew that when they had had enough of rotten Government, they could change not just the people, but the policies they were following. This House was great when it had full control of all our money and did not have to give away tariffs and taxes to foreign powers to spend in ways of which we do not approve. We need to wake up. We need to do what the British people want us to do. We need to take responsibility for governing this country. We need to
	enact the laws. We need to debate and argue about it in here. Brussels has too much power. The British people need a say. Let us have a vote.

Austin Mitchell: I shall be voting for the motion tonight because I do not want to be part of what has become a three-party conspiracy against the people. It is an abomination of democracy that the three parties, all of which have promised referendums and then denied the people those referendums and which are now forcing us to vote against a referendum, decided to impose three-line Whips on their followers to vote for Europe. It is behaving like Europeans. The EU is the construction of an EU elite that does not listen to the people: it knows where it wants to go, and it is not bothered what the people think. We cannot have that attitude in this country.
	We have to show the people that they can have a referendum. When we had a referendum 36 years ago, people voted for a very different institution—for a trading relationship—but it has now become a European monolith with ever-increasing powers. It is moving towards ever-closer union and is claiming to control economic policy as well. It is a very different institution and far more expensive. Budget contributions are £7 billion net a year, rising to £10 billion fairly soon. The CAP costs us £16.7 billion while the common fisheries policy costs us £4.7 billion. The British people must have a say on whether they want to make those excessive contributions. Why should the three parties be denying them?
	It would have been sensible for all three parties to agree to give us a free vote so that we could hear the sensible, clear, un-Whipped decision of Parliament. That might well have been in favour of a referendum, but I do not know. It would also have been sensible for the Government to have had a referendum in reserve because it would have strengthened their position in the negotiations with Europe that the Foreign Secretary told us were to come, but they avoided that. I cannot tell how this euro crisis, which is bedevilling us all, will work out—nor can the Prime Minister for that matter—but I question whether it is in our interest to keep the euro going. It would be more sensible for Greece to devalue and come out, and perhaps for some of the other Club Med states to do the same, because it would allow them to expand and grow, whereas at present they face 10 years of deflation. That would also put up the exchange rate of the German—or northern—euro, so that it would become less competitive and take a smaller share of our markets. That would be a logical outcome.
	We are going to struggle to use the big bazooka, as the Prime Minister put it, to keep Humpty Dumpty together—I am not sure how we would do that—but we have to bear it in mind that the people of Europe also want referendums. There are a series of policy studies based on the 2009 referendum showing that in Europe, 63% of people—from a sample of 27,000—wanted any future decisions to be taken by a referendum. This has been an interesting debate. It has been interesting how little praise for Europe there has been. It was interesting, too, that the Foreign Secretary defended Europe by praising with faint damns and turned down the weapon that the House was offering. I hope that we have tonight a big vote in favour of the motion. It would send a signal to Europe of what the people of this country
	think—not the elite, but the people—and would send a signal to the people that they can trust us and that we have their interests at heart.

John Baron: I, for one, shall be supporting tonight’s motion for one simple but important reason: the very nature of our relationship with the EU has fundamentally changed since we joined it in 1975, yet the British people have not been consulted on that change. Instead, they have consistently been denied a say. Perhaps tonight, we have an opportunity to put that right.
	It is a great shame that all three political leaders are whipping this vote in the way that they are. Some of the arguments that have been used to try to defeat the motion are illustrative. There has been no shortage of red herrings and Aunt Sallies as to why we cannot have a referendum on our future relationship with the EU. The first is about economics. A long line of speakers have talked about how important Europe is to us economically and how things would get so much worse if we left the EU. However, the debate on the motion is not about that; it is about whether we give the British people a say about the nature of our relationship with the EU. That argument is therefore a red herring. Indeed, the fact that our balance of trade with Europe is negative weakens it even further.
	We have had the red herring about timings: “This is not the right time.” However, I cannot remember when, in the last 36 years, it has been the right time. We have consistently been told, “This is not the right time.” I would turn that on its head and say that, with Europe in a state of flux, this might be a good time to renegotiate our relationship. I find it strange that, once again, the line is: “This is not a very good time.”

Harriett Baldwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right time to have a referendum was on the Lisbon treaty, which was in all three parties’ 2005 manifestos? Frankly, I would have enjoyed campaigning for a no vote to that treaty, rather than watching the previous Prime Minister surreptitiously go down to Lisbon and sign it virtually in secret.

John Baron: I am sure that the majority in the House can agree with that view.
	Let us look at some of the other red herrings that have been discussed this evening. There is the argument that if the motion was passed and we had a referendum, that would somehow weaken the Foreign Secretary’s hand. I completely disagree with that. A Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister going to negotiate would be emboldened by knowing that the voice of the British people had indicated the direction of travel and how they wanted the relationship to progress.
	Then we have had the argument that says, “Why bother with the motion? We’ve already got an à la carte Europe”—that is, people are already opting in and out of this and that, and so on. However, that argument does not stand up either, for the simple reason that what is happening, under the very noses of the British people, is that our sovereignty is being salami-sliced, week in, week out. We may talk about a referendum lock on future treaty changes, but to a certain extent that is
	tilting at windmills, for the simple reason that there is no treaty on the horizon; rather, what is happening, week in, week out, is that key competences and powers are being transferred over to Brussels. One example is in criminal justice, with the European investigation order.

James Clappison: That is a valuable point. Is it not the case that legislation regularly comes forward within the extensive competences that the European Union already enjoys? The European Union is occupying ground and legislating in matters that should be the preserve of this House.

John Baron: Absolutely, and my hon. Friend is well placed to see that for himself, sitting as he does on the European Scrutiny Committee. Key competences and powers are transferred across to Brussels almost daily, yet the political leaders in this place seem not to recognise that fact.
	The political elites across Europe—not just here—should understand the growing frustration with the current situation. We joined what was essentially a free trade area; it has turned more and more into political union. People do not like that. They want to be consulted, but they will be denied that freedom of choice if Members in this Chamber defeat the motion this evening. That, in my view, has to be wrong.
	The time to put it right is now. This is the motion that some of us have long believed is right and that was going to happen, but because of U-turns and deliberations by party leaders we have been denied this say. The political elite need to understand that at the end of the day they must answer to their electorate. They cannot justify ignoring the electorate when there has been so much fundamental change in our relationship with the EU. I would urge hon. Members—particularly those who may still be undecided—to support the motion this evening, if only in the name of democracy.

Denis MacShane: rose—

Hon. Members: Groan!

Nigel Evans: Order. He has not said anything yet.

Denis MacShane: In the spirit of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), tonight I shall vote for parliamentary democracy and against plebiscites, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to do the same.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is amazing how united the Conservative party has been so far today. We had a Eurosceptic statement from the Prime Minister and then a Eurosceptic speech from the Foreign Secretary, so it can only be the Liberal Democrats who are inveigling us down the path of unrighteousness and taking us away from supporting the motion. The Foreign Secretary made six points that must have been written for him by the Liberal Democrats, because he is
	far too clever a man to have thought of them for himself, because they do not really add up. I shall go through them.
	The Foreign Secretary made two points that were essentially trivial—too trivial for a man of his standing. They were, first, that there was no manifesto commitment for a referendum. However, manifestos can deal only with what is known at the time; they cannot deal with things that have not yet arisen. The crisis in the eurozone and the changes that could come from it were not known with clarity at that point, so it is now right to think beyond the manifesto to what the next steps are. That point can therefore be discarded.
	The Foreign Secretary then said that we had passed an Act of Parliament to deal with when we could have referendums, and so we did; but again, this House knows many things, but it is not omniscient. It cannot take care of every occasion that may arise when a referendum may be a good idea or every occasion when the British people—whom we should trust—may want one. So, those two points go.
	The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and we always enjoy his speeches, but will he clear up some confusion about the proposed three-way referendum? Will it use the alternative vote system or first past the post? The motion is not entirely clear.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an extra minute—it is kind of Gloucestershire to give something to Somerset for once. That issue can be dealt with in the legislation. Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.
	The fourth point that did not work was that the EU was all or nothing. However, it is already not all or nothing: we already have opt-outs and so forth. There are therefore two remaining points—as those who are good mathematicians will have worked out—that we need to look at. One was that we are dealing with this issue in a crisis and this is therefore the wrong time: “When a man’s house is burning down, you send in the fire brigade.” Quite right. But then, when he wants to hire someone else’s house nearby to find fresh accommodation, they can set the terms of the tenancy. That is the position that we are in with the European Union—a very strong negotiating position, which we should maximise.
	We should also note that we cannot solve our financial crisis until we have freed ourselves from the yoke of European regulation. Only this weekend, we have seen that Tesco is going to take on fewer part-time people because of a directive from Brussels. Are we really going to deny our citizens growth because Brussels wants to put a further yoke on them?

Ian Swales: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of Tesco’s most profitable areas is the part of eastern Europe that is in the European Union?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Tesco, great company that it is, is also very popular in Thailand, whose application for membership of the European Union I am currently unaware of.
	The Foreign Secretary made a final point that we would lose opportunities by going for a referendum now. Well, of course we would not; we would gain them. We are negotiating on the budget for the next few years on the basis of an absolute majority and a one-vote veto. This is not the intermediate budget. Our position is quite strong.
	As I see it, we have a wonderfully united Conservative party, upset by the Liberal Democrats. I admire the Liberal Democrats. They are good, honest people, but, when push comes to shove, getting a proper relationship with the European Union is more important than the coalition. If the Liberal Democrats want to go into a general election saying, “Let’s have more rules from Brussels and from Mr Barroso”, let them try it. We shall see how many seats they win on that basis. It is for us Back Benchers to say to Her Majesty’s Government: “Stiffen your sinews, summon up the blood and imitate the action of a tiger, for that is how you should behave towards our European partners, not like Bagpuss.”

Hon. Members: Hurrah!

Kelvin Hopkins: When I made my maiden speech, Ann Widdecombe had spoken just before me and she got a cheer. At the time, I said to myself, under my breath, “Follow that!” I am afraid that I shall have to do the same thing now.
	The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) mentioned red herrings several times. I am afraid that there are rather too few herrings around our shores on account of the common fisheries policy. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the motion tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), and I congratulate him on bringing it forward. I shall certainly be voting for it this evening.
	It is abundantly clear that the call for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union now has mass support across the country. A recent YouGov poll showed that 61% were in favour, with only 24% against. Among Labour supporters, 53% are in favour of a referendum, with 33% against. I hope that, together with other comrades, I speak for that 53% majority of Labour voters.
	There is no mystery as to why our political leaders are so opposed to holding a referendum. It is clear that they fear doing so because they fear that our electorate might vote for Britain to withdraw from the EU. If that happened, I suspect that there might be a domino effect across the whole European Union. I am, however, mystified as to why our leaders are so frightened of such an outcome.

Sam Gyimah: No one can really know what will happen in a referendum. In 1975, the public seemed to be against the EU, but they voted by 2:1 to join. None of us really knows how public opinion will fall in a referendum.

Kelvin Hopkins: I entirely accept that point, but I believe that the British people have become wiser about this matter since 1975. At that time, every single organ
	of the media was in favour of a yes vote; a no vote had no support in the media at all.

Edward Leigh: Surely the point is also that, in 1975, the hon. Gentleman had a vote, I had a vote and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is sitting next to me, had a vote. I do not know whether Mrs Bone had a vote—

Peter Bone: She was too young.

Edward Leigh: Indeed, and Mrs Leigh certainly did not have a vote, along with 84% of the present population. Do they not have a right to vote?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was the agent for the no vote in Bedfordshire in 1975, so I have a track record.
	Is our political class frightened that, if the British people voted to leave the European Union, we would no longer be a member of the common fisheries policy? Are they frightened that we might regain control of our fishing waters, stop the fishing free-for-all and see our fish stocks recover? Is it frightened that we would no longer have to subscribe to the common agricultural policy, and that we could instead choose to subsidise our farming, as and when, and where, we considered it appropriate and necessary? Is it frightened that we would no longer have to contribute to the European Union budget, at a cost of many billions a year, and rising? I cannot for the life of me see why such developments are so frightening.
	There is also the old chestnut about Britain’s economic dependence on the EU, and the number of jobs that people say could be lost. We have heard a great deal about that tonight. The reality is that we have a massive trade deficit with the EU. In 2010, we bought £53.5 billion more from the rest of the EU than they bought from us. It is laughable that the EU could start a trade war with the UK, when it needs us so much more than we need it.

George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend feel comfortable being bracketed with those such as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) who want to take away the rights of workers and recalibrate arrangements more towards employers?

Kelvin Hopkins: I want this Parliament, not Brussels, to decide our employment laws. I have every confidence that the British people will vote in a Labour Government next time, to restore powers to trade unions and to working people. That is what I shall always fight for.
	If we were to leave the EU, we should also find ourselves not bound by EU competition rules, so that we could, for example—and uninhibited by Brussels—buy trains from Bombardier, rather than from continental producers. We could also stop EU rules being used to promote the privatisation of the NHS. So what is there to fear? Rather, I think that there would be great advantages to being independent of the EU, and I have not heard a compelling argument to the contrary. I am going to vote for the motion tonight. This is the beginning of a long campaign, and I look forward to its successful end.

Stewart Jackson: It is a pleasure to rise to support the motion tonight. The House will know that I am not a “usual suspect”. Loyalty to the Conservative party runs through my veins, having been a member for 26 years. Those on the Front Bench will know that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) had his problems with grammar schools in 2007, I supported him. I also stood shoulder to shoulder with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) in 2001 when he was performing his historic role of saving our currency from the single currency that was being foisted on our country. He was traduced, lied about, ridiculed and attacked, and that was just by people in our own party. He was vindicated, however, and we have yet to hear a substantive apology from many of the people who advocated joining the single currency.
	It is more in sorrow than in anger that I vote for the motion tonight, because I support the Government and the fantastic work that they are doing on schools reform, on welfare reform and on getting down the appalling deficit left by the previous Labour Government. So I need no lectures on loyalty from some people. I defer to the Foreign Secretary, but I regret the unfortunate rhetoric that he used this morning about parliamentary graffiti. If I may be cynical, I fear that it has been a long road to Damascus from Richmond, Yorkshire, but I hope that I am wrong about that.
	I say to my colleagues that we can have a proper, mature debate on the future. This is not like the theological, semi-religious schisms of the 1990s. There is a settled Eurosceptic consensus in our party, and we now need to think about where we are going and how we are going to get there. The motion is helpful. It would have given the Prime Minister the wind behind his back. It is flexible, and it does not seek to fetter discretion. It is most certainly not a “better off out” motion. We could have had a well-informed, reasonable debate between the respective positions.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is making a powerful, personal statement to the House on his position on the motion. Does he agree that the public want to see less Europe and more Britain, and that the only way to achieve that is through supporting the motion and giving the British public a democratic vote on our future relationship with the EU?

Stewart Jackson: I could not have put it better myself.
	Hon. Members have made the point that a person has to be over 54 years of age to have had the opportunity to take part in a plebiscite on our future in Europe. If we can have a referendum on fiscal powers for Wales, on the north-east Assembly, on Scotland, Northern Ireland, Greater London government and other issues, why can we not have one on one of the most important philosophical differences about our approach to the European Union in a whole generation? It is not right.

Nadine Dorries: We have heard many Members say this evening that now is not the right time. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disingenuous argument because this motion does not impose a referendum now, but at some time in the future. Those hon. Members who say that now is not the right time are, as I say, being incredibly disingenuous about the motion.

Stewart Jackson: Absolutely; I agree with my hon. Friend. When is the right time? Net contributions of £9 billion are not loose change in our politics. We are on the cusp of a potentially new, more deeply integrationist treaty and an irreversible hard EU monetary union with profound ramifications for the future of this country, particularly for the City of London.
	I have to say to the Foreign Secretary, who is now on his flight to Canberra, that he once described the euro as
	“a burning building with no exits”,
	but he seems happy now to provide new mortice locks for the windows and the doors.
	The House of Commons should be allowed a free vote and an unfettered debate on this issue. The Government have no mandate to whip the vote as they have this evening. No one has a mandate since all the parties effectively reneged on the Lisbon treaty prior to the last general election. I have to say, as a former Whip, that this has been a catastrophic mismanagement for my party. We should have been able to show to our people that we were mature and that although we had logical differences, we would respect each other so that the integrity of Parliament would have been improved as a result. Instead, we have had the heavy-handed whipping that we have seen tonight.
	We can no longer exclude the people of this country—in the era of Twitter, Facebook and the internet—from the decision-making processes. We cannot infantilise them and make them look foolish as if only we, with the political elite and the plutocratic, bureaucratic elite of Europe, know what we are doing and they are too stupid to understand because they are the little people. It will not do any longer. The people’s voice will be heard.
	I gave my maiden speech in June 2005. I said then that
	“all political power is merely a leasehold held on trust and…it can be removed at any time. The people of Peterborough put their trust in me…I promised not to let them down”.—[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1078.]
	It is a leasehold; we cannot sell the freehold of our birthright, our democracy and the freedom of our country.
	I have no intention of breaking the bond of trust I made with my constituents in Peterborough. If we cannot debate the biggest constitutional issue of our generation here in the very cockpit of democracy in the House of Commons, why are we here? That would make manifestos a sham and elections meaningless. For me, constituency and country must come before the baubles of ministerial office. I will keep that faith with my constituents and, with a heavy heart, I will vote for the motion and take the consequences.

Caroline Lucas: My starting point is that there are good democratic reasons for those in favour of our continued membership of the EU, albeit a reformed EU, to support a referendum. I believe that it is precisely the refusal to give people a say on the EU that is leading to greater public disillusionment with it. It is precisely that that leads people to think that the EU is an elitist project which is done to them and
	which is not in the interests of the majority. I do not agree with that position, but I think it right that it should be debated.
	I believe that the EU has enormous potential to spread peace, freedom and security, to promote and protect democracy and human rights—at home and throughout the world. It has the potential to be a true pioneer in the transition to low-carbon economies and living more rightly on the planet. I believe that to fulfil that potential, however, it has to change direction and put greater democracy and greater sustainability at the heart of its objectives. I think having a referendum would enable us to debate the end-goal or purpose of the EU. At the moment we have lots of debates about whether we want more or less EU without answering the question, “To what purpose the EU?”
	For many Conservative Members, the answer will be that they want the EU, if they want it at all, to have far more of a free trade focus. For my party, we think it has too much of a free trade focus, but that is not the issue. The issue here is the right of the people to say what they want, the right to have that debate and the right for us to differ, as necessary, but none the less to have that debate about the advantages and, indeed, some disadvantages of the EU.
	In my experience, many of today’s European citizens are simply no longer sure what the EU is for. In my view, the ambitious free trade project at the heart of its original treatise has become an end in itself. Debates about the future of the EU have been dominated by the idea that the overriding goals of European integration are economic and that the progress of the EU should be judged in terms of economic growth and the removal of market barriers alone. As a result, the EU has failed to address fundamental questions of political culture and strategic purpose and has therefore also failed to inspire the mass of citizens with a sense of enthusiasm and common cause, thus calling into question its own legitimacy.
	In order to tackle the new threats and challenges we face today and to deliver a fair, sustainable and peaceful Europe into the 21st century and beyond, the EU must undergo radical reform. It must become more democratic and accountable, less bureaucratic and remote. It also needs to have a more compelling vision of its role and purpose, and a referendum would provide an opportunity to debate precisely those issues. To try to shut down that opportunity is, I think, very dangerous. It is possible to be pro a reformed EU and in favour of a referendum.
	I agree that there are plenty of areas where the EU needs reform. The common agricultural policy is in many respects an environmental disaster. The common fisheries policy ends up with enormous over-fishing and the scandal of discards. Unaccountable corporate influence over decision making skews the outcome of many decisions. There is an extraordinary arrogance, for example, in dressing up the Lisbon treaty as something different from the repackaging of the constitution that it really was.
	I believe that, more urgently than ever, we need the EU to fulfil its potential for strong environmental policy and for securing energy policy and energy security into the future. If it is to do that, however, it must have the consent of the British people. We need to make the case for a reformed EU. We should not be afraid of making that case. I believe that if we make it strongly, we will win it, which is why I support tonight’s proposal for a referendum.

Glyn Davies: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. It is, in fact, a historic debate because it is the first that has been triggered by the public through the petitions system. I believe that that system is a wonderful one; it is absolutely right to hold this debate today. I also think it right in principle that this House should debate issues of particular importance to the public, of which this is one.
	I shall oppose the motion, which fills me with disappointment. I would have liked to come to this debate to speak about the frustrations I feel—many of my colleagues have spoken about theirs today—over many of the decisions taken in the European Parliament, which I would have preferred to see taken in the British Parliament. There has been a trend for decisions to be made in the European Parliament since 1975. I should have liked to concentrate on that, and to speak in favour of a motion rather than against one.
	I am a Eurosceptic and always have been. In 1975 I campaigned for an “out” vote. I remember one of my colleagues saying that at the start of that referendum we thought we would win, but in the event we lost by a ratio of 2:1, and that is a lesson that I have not forgotten. Perhaps my greatest contribution was that in 2001, during a Save the Pound rally in Monmouth at which the current Foreign Secretary was speaking, I was hit on the back of the head by an egg that was directed at him. I “took one” for the Conservative party.

Charlotte Leslie: The motion is tragically timed, because it pits against each other the equally valid causes of ensuring that security and stability are maintained during a great euro crisis that will affect us here in the United Kingdom—even the discussion of a referendum on leaving the European Union will contribute to that instability—and giving the people the voice that they have been denied for so long in the determination of our role in Europe. It is a shame that that conflict has arisen today, but it makes our referendum lock and the conditions surrounding it all the more important.

Glyn Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am in conflict with many of my colleagues who have spoken today about timing, and I am very disappointed not to be flying the Eurosceptic flag that I should like to be flying. I remember how appalled I was when the last Government reneged on what I saw as a promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. That was the right time, but I believe that it may well come again and in similar circumstances.
	Two issues matter greatly to me. One is the type of referendum that we are discussing. I think that if a referendum is to be held and is to engage the public, there should be two options rather than three, as the motion suggests. A “preferendum” would be a mistake because it would not be clear enough, and I therefore cannot support the motion. The second issue is timing. I think that to have a debate on a referendum would be a huge mistake while we in Britain must deal with huge financial and economic issues, along with another massive issue—the social dislocation felt by so many of our young people. A referendum on our future relationship
	with the European Union would constitute a severe distraction from the two real missions of this coalition Government.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman knows that it would take at least 18 months to reach the point at which a referendum could take place. If this is not the right time, is 18 months from now the right time? As for the questions that would be asked in the referendum, that will be resolved during the negotiation period and in the Bill Committee. All the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman can easily be accommodated, and I appeal to him to change his position.

Glyn Davies: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think we should be much clearer about both those issues before proceeding with a referendum. We need to know exactly what the position is. We should not say, “We are in favour of this”, as if we were some sixth-form debating society; we should say, “This is what is being proposed”, and then say whether we are in favour of it or not. What we need is a clear-cut question.
	Many people have asked when will be the right time, but we cannot say when the right time will be. We have a Foreign Secretary and a Prime Minister who will conduct negotiations with the European Union, hopefully in order to restore powers to the United Kingdom. There may well be another treaty, as there was a Lisbon treaty, and in that event we as a Government would not renege as the last Government did. We would hold a referendum on an issue that the public could clearly understand, at a time when the people were ready to debate it. I hope that this debate will not lead to a referendum, because I do not think its focus would be clear, and clarity is what we need.
	There has been a great deal of discussion about a free vote and the involvement of the Whips. I want to make it clear that I made up my mind as soon as I saw the motion. I had been looking forward to a motion on this issue and had been keen to speak in favour of it, but when I saw it, I concluded that it had been a mistake because it divided Eurosceptic opinion. Long before any Whip contacted me I resolved to vote against it, and to try to catch Mr Speaker’s eye. I am glad to say that I did catch Mr Speaker’s eye, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
	I believe that one day, following a serious negotiation, there will be a referendum on our relationship with the European Union, and that that referendum will ask a clear question enabling the public to say yes or no about our relationship with the European Union. I look forward to that day, but I shall be voting against the motion tonight.

Michael Connarty: This is an interesting debate, and I apologise for having missed a few of the contributions. It is also a strange debate, however, in that many of the arguments being proposed in support of the motion do not, in fact, support it. My good friend the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is not in the Chamber at present. He talked about the £40 billion trade deficit, but anyone who voted for the Common Market voted for that to happen,
	as, unfortunately, it is inevitable in a free market economy. For instance, 73% of our chemical industry is now owned by companies that are not based in the UK, and that will end up against us in the trade figures.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is also no longer here. She urged us to put our own logical or ideological assessments before the instructions of the Whips. I have always done that, which is why I am going to vote against the motion. It is not logical to vote for it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) has slipped away. He is not so much a friend as an ongoing further education project for me. I pointed out to him that the only way to get any of what he wants is to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which states that we can leave the European Union. That has been put in place very deliberately. However, article 49 states that any country that leaves will be dealt with as if it is a new applicant, with no automatic right to rejoin and no special advantages. All this nonsense about renegotiating, repositioning and working on reform does not apply, therefore, and only a straight in/out referendum would be relevant. We could act upon that, but everything else would be left entirely to chance and to negotiations in the European Council and the European Parliament. That is the reality.

Andrew Percy: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that we can agree a new treaty that does exactly what many Members on the Government Benches wish. We can leave it to the treaty to achieve that.

Michael Connarty: Let me give the following advice to the hon. Gentleman, and to the Scottish National party Member who is present, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). The SNP thinks that if Scotland votes to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, it can walk straight into the EU, but that is not the case. Scotland would get into the EU only if it agreed to one major condition: it would have to join the eurozone.
	If the UK wanted to get back in, we would have to join the eurozone too. That is the reality, because that is now a condition for entering the EU, and it has been since before the Lisbon treaty. The position is as follows, therefore: we would have to decide in a referendum whether we wanted to be out of the EU, and if we wanted to go back in after that, we would then be at a great disadvantage because a decision would not come into force until after two years. It would have to be ratified by the other states; it would go ahead only if the European Parliament were to agree to it; and there would then be a vote to agree it in the Council under qualified majority terms. We are therefore tied up in knots by the Lisbon treaty, which I have described as a tipping point.
	I am glad to see that the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), is back in his place. He argued that the closure of an accident and emergency department in his constituency was down to the European Union. If there is such a closure in a Member’s area, the people who can deal with it are sitting on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman should ask SNP Members about that, because of what happened after their party was elected with a clear majority in the Scottish Government elections.
	The first thing it did was overturn a proposal to close two accident and emergency units: one in Monklands and the other in Ayrshire. That illustrates the power of Government in this context. Such issues are nothing to do with the European Union, therefore, so the hon. Gentleman should not have made that point.
	Some Members have also said that the call for a referendum expresses the settled will of the people. I respect, and am very fond of, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), but that is a very misleading claim to make. If we get 100,000 people writing in to say we should have a vote on a referendum on capital punishment, that would be more likely to be carried than the vote on this referendum. Are we really saying that 100,000 signatures would trigger a debate and vote in the House on a referendum on capital punishment? This is not about the settled will of the people, therefore. It just so happens that a lot of people have sent in some signatures on blogs, and I do not want to pay particular attention to them because I think that it is important that, like the Tunisian people, we respect parliamentary democracy.

William McCrea: If this referendum were held and its result clearly expressed the settled will of the people, would the hon. Gentleman be willing to accept that?

Michael Connarty: I voted in the 1975 referendum, and I voted yes. I did not vote in favour of the Common Market; I voted in favour of the aspirations that were so well described by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). Do we really think we have lasting peace? How long ago was Srebrenica? What state are the Balkans in at present? Do we really think the search for peace is finished business? It is not finished business by a long way.
	I also voted yes because I knew there was a better way forward that was not on offer at that time. That was introduced by Delors, when he brought in the social chapter. That is what I joined the EU for—social agreement. I support most of what would be offered us in the justice and social packages; they would guarantee them for our people as well as for all the people throughout Europe. These are things that are done by negotiation.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Michael Connarty: I do not have time to give way, as I have given way twice and I know how the system works.
	It is clearly important that we consider what the European Union is about. There are things to give up, such as our obsession with not wanting people in Europe to have the same rights when they are on trial. We are opposing translation rights and the right to legal representation—this Government are opposing them at the moment. How can anyone justify that? Europe has to be a better place to live. If it was not for the social chapter—

Richard Drax: rose—

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman knows the rules. I have given way often enough and I have had my extra two minutes.
	We need to think about Delors and what happened when the package for the social chapter came in. It protected the people I represent from Thatcherism in its
	worst aspects; it was a chance to rebalance Europe and bring about a social Europe. So much has been said about that. I respect the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway), who decided to resign as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, as it is right that people should be able to put their principles before someone’s attempt to give them a little bag-carrying job. I am not sure that he would be resigning quite as quickly if he was a Minister. The problem is that no Ministers have been saying that they will resign their ministerial position over this matter.
	The Liberal Democrats say that they would vote for a referendum only on a fundamental shift, but there has been a fundamental shift. It has been away from voting Liberal, and their voting with the Government will damage them. I am sorry about that, but the Liberals did say that they would do something. The European Union still protects the three red lines: defence, tax and foreign policy. What we need to do in this place is give more power to the Backbench Business Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee to stop the Government voting things through in the Council, which they do at the moment.

Douglas Carswell: For 40 years, we have left Europe policy to Ministers and to mandarins—to a tiny Whitehall elite. Look at the collective mess that they have made of it. We have a fisheries policy with no fish; red tape strangling small businesses; financial regulation that suffocates the City; and now we are being asked to spend billions of pounds bailing out a currency that we never even joined. We have lurched from one bad deal with Brussels to the next, and from one disastrous round of negotiations to another. That is the price we pay for leaving it to Ministers and mandarins to decide our Europe policy. It is time to trust the people. Today, every Member of this House faces a straightforward choice. They can either vote to give people a referendum on the EU or they can vote not to trust the people.

Charles Walker: Would my hon. Friend like to expand on that point?

Douglas Carswell: I shall try to do so over the next three minutes, and I am grateful for that thoughtful and erudite intervention.
	This is a matter of principle: is it right, in principle, to put the question of EU membership to a popular vote? Too many people in Westminster—in SW1—try to second-guess how the voters may vote in a referendum and then work backwards to decide whether or not they favour a referendum. Instead we should start from the principle: is it right for the people to decide? Yes it is, and I believe that this issue qualifies for a referendum. The issue is of massive constitutional significance, it divides all three parties and it cannot be adequately settled in a general election.
	Referendums can no longer be dismissed, as they have been for many years, as somehow alien to the British tradition. We have had dozens of referendums since 1997, including a national referendum on the alternative vote.

Richard Drax: Does my hon. Friend accept that the reason why we are having more and more referendums is that the people who put us here simply do not trust us?

Douglas Carswell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There has been a mood change in this country away from what one might call “deferential democracy”, where people leave it to the 650 people here to make public policy, to a new kind of democracy, where people want more choice and they want politics to be done by them, rather than to them by a remote elite. Some people in my party and in our own Whips Office have not truly understood that sea change.
	If we are to have a referendum to decide how we elect Members of Parliament, surely we can have a referendum to decide whether or not those we elect should make the rules under which we live. Today’s motion has been put on the Commons agenda by the people. It is to this coalition’s immense credit that it has introduced a mechanism to allow voters to trigger debates—some 100,000 voters have triggered this debate. But we cannot say that we want to renew democracy if we shy away from the outcome of what the people say. We cannot claim that we want a new politics if we then use old-style whipping tactics from the 1950s to crush debate—or, rather, we could do all that but then we would have the credibility of a Greek Government bond.
	Today’s vote is about change. I am voting for an EU referendum because I want change—change not only in our relationship with Europe but fundamental change in the way this country is run. I am not voting for a referendum in the hope that it will take us to some insular, mythical island past: I am voting for an open society—a truly global country. Ultimately, this is not about flags, anthems or identity, but about whether it is right for millions of people to have their lives arranged for them by deliberate design of technocrats. It is about democracy.
	I ask each Member to cast their mind back to the day they were first elected to this House. I ask them to recall that sense of pride mingled with awesome responsibility when the returning officer read out the winner’s name. Most hon. Members will have felt in their bones that entering this House was one of the most exalted and greatest moments in their lives. Look at how today we are scorned. “MPs don’t keep their promises,” say the cynics. “You say whatever you say to get elected,” they cry. Today is our chance to show the cynics that they are wrong.
	All three parties until recently promised the people a referendum on the EU. There is no point in clever wordplay or in reading the clever brief from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials—most people understood that we were going to give them a referendum. That is what MPs in all parties wanted the people to believe and it is the impression that we deliberately conveyed. This evening, we have a chance to keep our promises, to honour our word and to keep faith in our country. I will vote to let the people decide and I urge other hon. Members to do so. My hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) are indeed honourable and it is a privilege to be their colleague on the Back Benches.

Stephen McCabe: Given what I want to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, I might, with all due respect, if I had had a choice, have preferred not to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell).
	They say that if you hang around this place for long enough nothing should surprise you, but recent antics do surprise me. The other week we were subjected to manoeuvres par excellence by the Government Whips and business managers to block discussion on a clause put forward by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on the subject of freedom of speech in a Bill laughably called the Protection of Freedoms Bill. Tonight, the Government Whips—indeed, the Whips and business managers of all three main parties—have conspired to put a three-line Whip on a Back-Bench business motion, which effectively means that Parliament is being invited to talk about Europe but not to vote on it. So much for the mother of Parliaments!
	Let me make it clear that I am not anti-European and that if I vote for the motion tonight I shall find myself in the Lobby with some strange bedfellows, including some people who, frankly, I think are mad. If there ever were an in/out referendum, I would almost certainly find myself arguing the case for trade and jobs in Europe. I think that is where I would end up. However, I also recognise that there is growing demand for reform in Europe. It is Lib Dem policy to have an in/out referendum, and most people understood it to be the Prime Minister’s policy to have a referendum if there was any significant change to the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, no one who has heard the Prime Minister over the past three years could think he was anything but a referendum man. And our esteemed Foreign Secretary once thought these issues were so important that he fought an entire general election on them.
	Tonight, however, in a little Back-Bench business debate where the normally unimportant little people are expressing their views—views that strike a remarkable chord with the British public—the muscle men, the U-turn merchants and the bully boys, the Ministers and the would-be Ministers, are all out to force their say. What they are saying is, “All you little Cinderellas can go to the ball, but you can’t dance.” All the grand talk from this Government about greater respect for Parliament and Back Benchers, and the role that they have played in setting up the Backbench Business Committee, amount to nothing if the Government show tonight that they are scared to debate the topic.
	A Back-Bench business debate is just that. It is about taking the temperature. This is not an Opposition day. We are not dealing with Government business. In a simple little Back-Bench business debate, I think I am entitled to vote how I damn well like.

Graham Stuart: It is a great pleasure to participate in tonight’s historic debate. We have heard many great, passionate speeches from both sides of the House, but none more so than from the Government Benches, many Members seeing this as an opportunity to strike out against over-whipped government and to seek a return to more democratic values.
	I consider myself to be a Eurosceptic, so I find myself in a strange position: I will vote against the motion, but not because I have been leant on by any Whips. I came to that conclusion prior to the first call. It is an insight into the co-ordination of Whips that you tell one at length, then another one rings you up anyway. They could get more co-ordinated.
	To follow on from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), it is a shame that tonight has gone the way it has, though it is unfair to say that the Government have not allowed debate. From a party political management perspective, it may have been naïve to do what the Government have done. They brought the debate forward to today, the Prime Minister through his statement was able to participate, and the Foreign Secretary led for the Government. Far from stifling debate, therefore, the Government at the highest level have engaged with it. Whether that was wise party management I leave to others to judge, but I think it probably was not.
	In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who gave a powerful speech, I believe in parliamentary democracy. I do not believe parliamentary democracy puts down the small people. I know my hon. Friend has strong beliefs, which he has espoused over many years, including a belief in direct democracy. He has an agenda for direct democracy. He does not believe in the representative democracy that I believe in.
	I do not believe that we are delegates. I am not about the percentage of my constituents who believe a particular thing. I should be out there listening to them, and I was out there on Saturday at my street surgery. The previous weekend I spent all day going round the villages listening to people and hearing from them, but it is not my job to do whatever the percentage majority tell me to do. My job is to come to this place and do the best I can by the people whom I represent.

Mark Reckless: Can representative democracy work only if we keep our promises to the electorate? On this issue, all three major parties promised a referendum and we are not giving it.

Graham Stuart: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that is one of the great myths that has been peddled. He does a disservice to the party. As I said in an intervention earlier, I honestly believe that the Prime Minister was not reneging on the promise on Lisbon when it had been ratified. If I had promised a board meeting before a payment goes out and someone else pays it out, the cheque is cashed and I do not hold a board meeting to discuss the cheque that has already been cashed—I am not reneging on anything; I am simply recognising the reality. I do not believe that the Conservative party or the Prime Minister reneged on any promise.
	The manifesto on which I and my hon. Friend stood in 2010 made no promise of any referendum whatsoever. What it did promise—I say this gently to my colleagues tonight—was to bring in a referendum lock if there was to be further treaty change. I recognise and my hon. Friends point out that some powers leak and leech away without a treaty in prospect. The passage of a European Union treaty, however, was historic in this Parliament and this democracy. There will come a time when a treaty triggers the provision, and it will not be far off—I do not believe that the Government can slip vast powers under it. The truth is that that time is coming and we are winning the argument. The last thing we need to do is fight among ourselves. We must recognise that we are carrying the British people, who are more Eurosceptic, with us.
	I continue to believe that we are better off within the European Union, although I am open to persuasion that we could be better off out. Some colleagues who
	believe that passionately are using today’s debate as a Trojan horse. I respect their view, but I think that the three-part nature of the motion is confusion and that the suggestion that we can somehow mandate the Government to renegotiate is false. I do not see how we can do that. The Government must lead and get the best position they can. When they come back with a treaty, as I am sure they will in the not-too-distant future, it will be put to the British people. That will be the time to do it. I do not think that it is disingenuous to talk about timing.

Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend touches on a central point, which is that not all of us feel that we would be better off out of the EU. Many of us want the common market we signed up for, more free trade and less of the baggage. Is that not the direction of travel in which we should be headed?

Graham Stuart: I agree. Colleagues might say tonight with a wry smile that they, too, like the Prime Minister, believe in nudge theory. They would say that the motion, the strong debate and the number of Members who will be in the Aye Lobby will tell the Government how seriously members of our party feel on the matter, and they may have a point. My constituents, whom I have sensibly been talking and listening to, are not telling me that this is top of their list of priorities. At the top of their list are jobs, employment and the need to ensure that we do not put people in the dole queue, particularly young people, as one of the Labour party’s toxic legacies was to leave so many young people not in education, employment or training.
	Our duty is to move very coolly on this subject. The time will come when we will have a referendum. We should not pass the motion tonight. We should absolutely listen to our constituents, who are telling us that they have priorities above and beyond the obsession in certain parts of the Conservative party with Europe above all other issues.

George Eustice: May I say how good it is that we are having this important debate this evening, but how disappointed I am that the build-up to it has given the impression that the Conservative party is divided on Britain’s approach to the European Union? The truth is that the only real division this evening will be over the wording of a motion, not the substance of our approach to the EU. In reality, Conservatives are united in believing that the EU has accumulated far too many powers, that the status quo is no longer an option and that we must renegotiate a new relationship with the EU and make a fresh start.
	I think that three distinct steps need to be taken. First, we need a plan, and in my view the Government should be doing the work right now to identify which powers we would seek to repatriate. Secondly, we need to take every opportunity we have to negotiate and to deliver that plan. Finally, the end of the process should be the point at which we have a referendum and put the renegotiation to the people.
	It is because I believe that a referendum should come at the end of the process, rather than the beginning, that I cannot support the motion as it stands this evening. However, I cannot support the Government by voting
	against it, so I will abstain. The reason I cannot support the Government is that I want them to do far more than they have so far been willing to do to accelerate the plan for a renegotiation. That will be the main focus of my comments today.
	It concerns me that the Foreign Office might be ducking the challenge here, and I have been very disappointed by the “jam tomorrow” nature of some of the Foreign Secretary’s comments. The urgent need to get our economy moving again becomes clearer by the day. There are no easy ways out of the current mess. We need radical thinking to get our country moving again, and that should include dealing with the morass of EU laws and regulations. I do not think that it is good enough to say that changing the EU is all too difficult and so nothing can be done for years to come. Sorting out the EU is not something that might be nice in the distant future; tackling the burden of EU regulation is an integral part of the solution to the current crisis and we must act now. We have to find a way of cutting the Gordian knot that has created a situation in which politicians talk about reforming the EU but can never find the moment to deliver real change.

Charlie Elphicke: Will my hon. Friend set out how exactly he would cut that Gordian knot?

George Eustice: I was about to come on to precisely that.
	I do not accept the argument that nothing can be done until there has been an intergovernmental conference or a new treaty. Where there is the political will, there is always a way, and where needs must, the EU has shown itself able to react quickly and then sort out the lawyers and the legal basis for action later.

Mark Pritchard: I commend my hon. Friend for his long-standing convictions on these issues. He talks about a White Paper, renegotiating powers and then a referendum. What timetable does he envisage for that referendum?

George Eustice: It would come as soon as we had finished the negotiation, and if I had my way, it would happen very quickly and, certainly, within this Parliament.
	The bail-outs in Greece and Ireland were technically against EU law, but the European financial stability facility was agreed and implemented within days; three years ago, the bank bail-outs breached EU state aid rules, but again exemptions were created when needs required it. Sweden has technically been in breach of the treaties for a decade, because it does not have an opt-out from the euro, but the EU has had to learn to live with it, as that is the political reality. The Danish Government have unilaterally introduced extra customs checks on their borders, which are in breach of the Schengen agreement, but, again, the EU has had to learn to live with it.
	The lesson from those examples is that EU law is a flexible notion. In fact, the European Union Act 2011 explicitly states that EU regulations and directives have force in this country only when Parliament allows them to, so we must be far more willing to set aside the authority of the European Court of Justice, and
	crucially we should not let dreary treaties and EU protocols get in the way of taking urgent action to stimulate our economy.
	Let us say to the EU that we are going to delay the agency workers directive, making it clear to the institution that it will have to learn to live with that and that we will not accept an infraction procedure. Let us make it clear, during the current negotiations on the budget, that we intend to disapply, for instance, the working time directive, which was mentioned earlier, until we get this economy out of recession.
	The European Union would complain, but, if the evidence of the examples I have cited is anything to go by, it would probably take it at least three years to get around to doing anything about it. Such a move might do something else, too. People keep saying, “These European politicians have no intention of having a treaty; they just won’t negotiate with us, so we have to give up,” but if we unilaterally did those things we would suddenly find that there was an appetite for a long-term solution to such issues. It would be a catalyst to get negotiations moving.

Bob Stewart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

George Eustice: I am sorry, but I have almost finished, and I do not want to eat into other people’s time.
	Negotiators in the Foreign Office would probably wince at the idea of adopting such a stance, but it is the only way we can cut that Gordian knot, sort out the EU and get our economy moving again, and I very much hope that the Minister takes those comments on board.

Kris Hopkins: I, like many in the country, am angered at the continued erosion of our sovereignty, and at the shipping of our powers across the channel to Brussels. Businesses, the judicial system and citizens of this country are subject to a growing federalisation—to federalist power—that seeks to engulf not only the economy but our politics.
	The unfolding eurozone disaster is an example of the chaotic and unaccountable actions that have been allowed to play out within the European project, and that in itself is bad enough, but the failure of eurozone members to take responsibility, to lay the facts before each other and to own up to mistakes is what concerns me more. I am a Eurosceptic, and I struggle to find anything to respect in an institution that cannot sign off its own accounts, let alone manage someone else’s.

Jim Shannon: For 32 years the UK has been a net contributor, not a recipient, of EU moneys. If it were a pension scheme, everybody would say, “Let’s get out now.” Does that not underline the need for the people of the United Kingdom to make up their own minds in a referendum, and not to pay into a system that takes plenty but gives little?

Kris Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I look forward to campaigning for such a referendum to be put into our next manifesto.
	I welcome and support the referendum lock, and I look forward to seeing the work of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to ensure that we bring
	powers back from Brussels, and initiate reform of the European Union. That was part of our election promise, and we should see it through.
	I watched the Conservative Government in the 1990s rip themselves apart over Europe. After 13 years in opposition, I am dismayed that after just 18 months in government, we are sitting here again with the same tension. There is an element of self indulgence here and, if we are not careful, it will be a route to self-destruction. We are facing the greatest economic upheaval in 100 years.

Justin Tomlinson: Will my hon. Friend explain why this was the second most popular issue on the e-petitions list?

Kris Hopkins: As I said in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), if there is such support for the matter, we should campaign to ensure that it is part of our party’s next election manifesto.
	Should we compromise on financial stability, growth and maintaining low interest rates for the sake of losing our ability to negotiate reform, and to negotiate to bring powers back to this country? If we compromise now, we will have a lame duck Government for a couple of years while the world watches, knowing that we will have a referendum that might compromise that position. We have the best hand in a generation, and we should play it to full effect.
	This is the wrong motion at the wrong time for this country. This is Great Britain, and we do not run away when Europe gets into trouble. In fact, we have a reputation for sorting out those poor fellows. It is in Britain’s interest to be at the table.

Richard Drax: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kris Hopkins: No.
	The global economy is changing rapidly, and the focus of power is moving east. We need to be able to use all the opportunities, including through the European Union, to participate in that growth of wealth. Some hon. Members have said today that it would not be democratic if the 100,000 votes do not win the day, but I have an opinion and other hon. Members have a different one. That is democracy, and I will vote against the motion.

Richard Shepherd: On 21 February 1992, there was a Second Reading debate on a private Member’s Bill that I had introduced on a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. It was anticipatory, and the occasion was the last one on which Mrs Thatcher voted as a Member of this House. It is not because of vanity that I mention that, but because of a remarkable speech. This is an appeal to Labour Members. I will quote that remarkable speech, which was made by Peter Shore—those who knew him will understand why I say that—the then Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. He said that a
	“referendum…offers one of the few possibilities to remedy a fundamental weakness in our constitution. We have no written constitution and no procedures to protect and entrench features of our national and constitutional life. Everything can be changed by a simple majority. Many other countries, as we know, have
	quite elaborate procedures requiring a majority of two thirds for changes in constitutional matters and arrangements, often backed up with public referendums.”
	Then he comes to the burden of the argument:
	“We have no such defence. Indeed, previously we did not need them, because only this generation of British parliamentary representatives has contemplated handing to others the great prizes of national independence, self-government and the rule of law under our own elected representatives. It would not have occurred to a previous generation to hand to others that which we prize most greatly and have given to other countries throughout the world in the past 50 years. That is the novelty of the proposition, against which, because we did not think it conceivable, we have no defences. A referendum is a major constitutional device for defending the rights of the British people and our constitution.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 590.]
	I was personally moved by that because it described the thread that ran through our long march for liberty, with the ordinary people coming to effect the election of this House, and those who represented them knowing that only they could make the law by which we were governed. In this, the concept of the rule of law, there has to be proper due process. That debate, which took place immediately before the election, was very controversial. Subsequently, I moved the referendum amendment to the Maastricht Bill.
	All the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary amounted to what we have heard so often regarding ordinary and constitutional legislation: “It is not the right time.” My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) put it very brilliantly as he dissected what that amounts to. A referendum essentially says, “Trust the people”, and that is the one thing that the Executive of this House are loth to do because they do not know what the outcome will be. However, we should respond to the generosity of the Government in allowing a Committee of this House to accept a petition from the public outside. We need a referendum.

Robin Walker: I have always been proud to be a moderate, one-nation Conservative and a supporter of this coalition Government. Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), my Euroscepticism is driven by internationalism, and I fear the dangers of a “little Europe”.
	I welcome the work that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done to limit our exposure to eurozone bail-outs, provide a referendum lock on future treaties and reduce the EU budget, and I strongly support what they say about the benefits of being in Europe but not run by Europe. However, I believe that all three major parties are mistaken in opposing the motion, and more greatly so in imposing harsh Whips on their supporters.
	This cross-party Back-Bench motion reflects a profound disquiet in the country at the fact that, for decades, we have had no say on our relationship with Europe, and it reflects widespread popular support for an opportunity for people to have that say. I was born in 1978, and in no time during my lifetime, nor in the adult lifetimes of the vast majority of hon. Members, has there been an opportunity to debate publicly our membership, or even the terms of our membership, of the EU. Eight out of 10 people eligible to vote today have never had this opportunity. There should have been a referendum on
	the Lisbon treaty. I am proud that Conservative Members voted against that treaty when Labour disgracefully broke its promise to hold a referendum on the constitution that it replaced.
	There have been many debates in this House on aspects of European policy, but none has triggered a referendum or engaged the public in the way that today’s motion could. Many hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), have very reasonably criticised the idea of a three-way referendum. I would far rather have supported a straight yes or no question on renegotiating the powers of Brussels. That is why I would have unreservedly supported the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). Sadly, as that amendment was not selected, I find myself faced with a dilemma. In a three-way referendum, there is a risk that the wrong answer can be achieved with a significant minority vote, as the Prime Minister has explained. I have never argued for an in/out referendum because I do not believe that that is the right question to ask.

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend makes a very passionate case. Was not repatriating powers from Brussels in our last election manifesto, and is it not therefore Conservative party policy and the Government’s policy?

Robin Walker: I am grateful for that intervention. I agree that that was in our manifesto. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the policy of the coalition Government. That is my concern.
	I support the third option set out on the Order Paper: renegotiating our membership to base it on trade and co-operation. That is what we signed up for in the first place. The question comes down to whether one believes that the risks inherent in a three-way referendum outweigh the benefits of what in my view, in the view of the last Conservative manifesto and, I believe, in the view of the vast majority of the British people is the right thing to do. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, it comes down to whether one trusts the people, and I trust the British people. I believe that if they were offered such a choice and were engaged in a reasoned debate on the three options, they would do as they did with the AV referendum and come to a sensible conclusion.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Robin Walker: I will not give way again, I am afraid.
	I do not buy the argument that now is the wrong time. The motion states that a Bill should be brought forward in the next Session of Parliament. If the eurozone crisis has not been resolved by then, we are all in much greater trouble than we thought.
	In conclusion, I am no Euro-fanatic and have no great desire to earn the label of rebel because I strongly support many of the steps that the coalition Government have taken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) pointed out, we are the representatives of our constituents, not just delegates. It is not right to vote on an issue simply because of the number of letters we have received or according to what we hear on the doorstep, but as representatives we should certainly take those things into account.
	I spent much of my weekend talking to constituents about this issue, along with many others. Everyone I asked felt it was right that they should have a choice. I received many letters in support of the motion and only one against, from a retired Labour councillor. Among those letters, one that made an impression was from my constituent, Mr Raymond Cross, who wrote:
	“I am almost 87 years of age, served and offered my life to my King and Country…in the army during the second world war. I still have the original ‘Britain & Europe’ booklet issued by the Ted Heath Government in July 1971. That is what we voted on in 1975.
	There should be a free vote on this referendum. Members of Parliament are there to debate the pros and cons of the motion put forward not to obey slavishly the will of”
	their parties. I profoundly regret that there is no such free vote. I am a passionate supporter of my party and this coalition Government, but it is a well-established convention that constituency should come before party and, still more importantly, that country should come before all. On that basis, I shall support the motion tonight.

David Morris: I contribute to this debate as a Eurosceptic who believes that too many of our powers and freedoms and too much of our money have been handed over to Brussels.
	For years, we have argued desperately and even begged to maintain our membership of the EU without being ruled by an undemocratic federal state. We failed largely because the whole basis of the European project was to have a federal country with its own currency. The assumption was that even countries such as Denmark and Britain would come round eventually and join the euro. After that, we would all become one big federal country like America. That situation made it almost impossible for people like me who want to co-operate in Europe, but to remain British.
	Things have changed significantly in recent years. The euro is in turmoil. The dream, or perhaps the nightmare, of a federal state with one currency is nearly dead. It cannot now happen. That gives us an opportunity. For years we have talked about a two-speed Europe. There is now an opportunity for a two-system Europe. Those who want closer union can have it, while countries such as Britain, Greece and Denmark can be more loosely aligned. That is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about when he used the phrase,
	“In Europe, but not run by Europe.”
	It seems that there now have to be two systems, whether Brussels likes it or not. The good news for us Eurosceptics is that for the first time since the 1980s, we have a Government who are genuinely committed to negotiating for that. If negotiations fail on the two-system Europe, we will have to reappraise our approach.
	For now, we must grasp the opportunity. This is the first time in decades when we have had the opportunity to be in Europe, but not in a federal state where we are dictated to by people with whom we disagree. We are now in a stronger position and we need to show strength. This window of opportunity will not exist for ever, so I want the Government to go back to Europe and get our powers back.
	Most people who advocated this referendum would be happy if we got the benefits of Europe, namely free trade, without all the red tape. If we can do that, we can
	put the issue to bed for ever. We would save ourselves from extra tax and bureaucracy. That is agreed across the House. Saving ourselves from both those things will be vital for economic growth. I think we now all agree that a federal Europe is dead. Britain will now never join the euro, and we have the chance to renegotiate—we have that assurance from the Prime Minister. Let us do that while the opportunity exists, and if that fails, we can have a referendum on leaving the EU.
	The motion has the passion of a broad, belief-based ideology, and we can read it in any way we want depending on our own views. I believe that I signed up to point (c) in the motion—let us renegotiate. In Europe, but not run by Europe.

Mark Lazarowicz: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but having sat through some three hours or so earlier and heard a number of points of view, I thought I would take the opportunity to make a few points.
	I fully accept that the House should take very seriously the number of signatures on the e-petition and the views that have been expressed to many MPs. I certainly accept that they are expressions of widespread concern. However, Members must accept that although some people feel very strongly about the issue, that does not mean that all people do. It is only a year and a half since we had a general election, and at that point none of the major parties stood on a platform of an in/out referendum of the type that is being suggested today. We must question how democratic it would be if we were to vote tonight for a policy that very few of us stood on in the last general election.
	The motion is about leaving the EU, or changing our relationship with it in such a way that we would effectively no longer be part of it. My reasons for opposing it are simple, and some of them have already been stated. First, there is the powerful argument that the EU has been a defender and supporter of security and peace in Europe since it was established. If Britain were to withdraw from the EU, it would bring into question the EU’s whole raison d’être, and I do not want us to a return to a Europe of instability and, ultimately, conflict between member states. We have been lucky over the past 70 years, but for many centuries Europe was riven by all sorts of terrible warfare, and we do not want to see that return.
	Much more immediately, I support colleagues on the Labour Benches, and some on the Government Benches, who have pointed out that there would be a real danger to our economy, because there would be a danger to the European economy, if we were to begin negotiations over the next 18 months on Britain withdrawing from Europe or renegotiating our relationship in such a way that we would no longer be recognisable as part of the EU.
	I have noticed this evening that the view put forward by the Eurosceptics seems to be that their ideal relationship with the EU would be something like that of Norway and Switzerland. Leaving aside the fact that there is no suggestion anywhere of that being a realistic option to put on the negotiating table, as has been said, everything that Norway and Switzerland do in the economic field is affected by the decisions of the EU. As part of their agreements they are required to accept most European
	legislation. Where relevant, they have to accept the decisions of the European Court, and where they are not bound to accept EU legislation, they are certainly heavily influenced by it. The difference between those countries and us is that we would not have any voice, because we would not have representation in Europe either in the democratic institutions such as the European Parliament, in the European Council or elsewhere.
	I believe that we need Britain to play a stronger role in Europe, and I want our Government to take an active role to defend our interests in Europe. I hope that one good thing, at least, will come out of tonight’s debate, and that some of the politicians who have played with a Eurosceptic position over the years as a way of trying to win votes might recognise that they have played with fire and are responsible for the consequences of their action tonight, which is the rebellion by Tory Back Benchers. I hope that there will now be a more positive approach to Europe—criticism, yes, but at the same time let us recognise its benefits to our country. Let us ensure that we work in Europe to make it succeed, rather than go down a road that would lead to an economic downturn for this country and economic damage to Europe as a whole.

Nicholas Boles: I have listened with great attention to all of the speeches for the past five hours, with the occasional break to take in and then expel a little liquid. I can tell the House that the passion and the idealism, and even the personal courage, has all been on one side of the debate—the side of those who support the motion.
	I agree with much that those hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House believe and want. I agree with them that Governments of all stripes have given too much power to the EU; that we need to renegotiate the terms of our membership, so that it focuses more on economic matters of trade and co-operation, and less on other issues that Europe was not set up to deal with; and that the British people should have the final say.
	However, I will not vote with them tonight for the following reason. Although they have the passion, the idealism and the personal courage, I am afraid that they lack good sense. There will be only one time in the foreseeable future when we can hold a referendum on our membership of the EU—it has been 40 years since the last one, and we are likely to get only one shot in the next 40—and we must use it well. We must hold that referendum when it is most likely to assist us in getting the deal from Europe that we want.

Andrew Percy: I can predict exactly what will happen. If we propose a referendum at a time of economic growth, everyone will say, “Now is not the time to have a referendum, because everything is going so swimmingly.”

Nicholas Boles: I thank my hon. Friend, but that was not my point. My point on timing is simply this: we need the promise—or, indeed, the threat—of that referendum to persuade our European partners to give us some of what we want in that negotiation.

Richard Drax: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nicholas Boles: I will not give way again yet.
	If an imminent referendum hangs over that negotiation, the Prime Minister has a hand to play. He can say, “If you don’t give me the concessions I need, and if you don’t meet the demands of the British people, I will not be able to win that referendum, and you will lose one of the biggest members of the EU for ever.” However, if we have the referendum now, we will entirely waste the whole exercise. If we have a referendum in the next three years, before we have completed that renegotiation, and on a muddled question with three options, we will entirely forfeit our best negotiating tool.

Mark Pritchard: I commend my hon. Friend for his consistency, and although I do not agree with him, I respect him for his convictions. Will he tell the House what timetable he envisages for a referendum? Would it be in this Parliament or the next one?

Nicholas Boles: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, not least because he brings me to the conclusion that I probably would otherwise have forgotten. He asks exactly the right question, but I do not have news that will cheer up Conservative Members.
	The first step before we start that renegotiation is, I am afraid, achieving a majority Conservative Government. We cannot start a renegotiation of our entire membership of the EU when the Government speak with two voices. We need a unified position, and we do not have it now, which I regret. I fought like all Conservatives for a majority Government, but we did not get it.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nicholas Boles: I will not be giving way again.
	The second step is to start a renegotiation, which will probably take two or three years. We can promise that referendum in about year four of the next Parliament, after the Conservatives have won a majority. We might then get the Europe we want.
	If we do what those brave hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen want us to do, we will waste our chance and get no clear answer to that referendum question. We might find ourselves in an unreformed and unreformable EU for the rest of my lifetime. I am not willing to risk that, which is why I will vote against the motion.

Martin Vickers: Many Members have referred to the part that they played in the 1975 referendum, and sadly I am one of those who is old enough to have participated. It is interesting to note that that referendum followed a renegotiation of our terms with the Common Market, as it then was, and the question put to the electorate was: “Do we stay in or do we leave?” I voted to leave, and I am pleased that I did so, because I have been consistent throughout. On my selection as a candidate and on the doorstep during the election, I said consistently that I had voted no and that I had not changed my mind, and that the Government position was one thing but mine was another. I am not prepared to break that bond of trust with the electorate.
	It has been mentioned that the electorate are becoming disconnected. To a great fanfare of trumpets, the Government introduced the e-petition system, but within
	weeks they have destroyed the public’s confidence in it. It was as certain as night following day that a motion for an in/out referendum would result from an e-petition, but what have the Government done? They have cast it aside. There have been other distractions. We have been told that it is only eighth or 10th on the list of people’s concerns. This time last year, we were ploughing ahead with legislation on the alternative vote referendum. On the No. 45 from Cleethorpes to Immingham, people were not demanding a referendum on AV, but we allowed ourselves to be distracted.
	I am pleased that my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), is in his place, because he will know that the scars run deep in our part of the world following the destruction of the fishing industry which resulted from the sacrifice made at the negotiations to enter the Common Market in the first place.

Jim Shannon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the national opinion poll today showing that 81% of those who voted Conservative, 62% of those who voted for the Liberal Democrats and 61% of those who voted Labour would vote for the motion? We ignore the electorate and national opinion polls at our peril.

Martin Vickers: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Government and the Opposition parties ignore the electorate’s view on this at their peril. We must consider the real people of England, as I like to call them. Yesterday I was at a civic service for a town mayor in Barton-upon-Humber. Members on both sides will have been to these occasions. The real people, those who run our community groups and churches—they are the big society—feel very deeply about this but think that they are being ignored and cast aside. Unless the Government come to terms with that in the near future, they will pay a high price.
	I said earlier this year in the debate on votes for prisoners that all Governments take decisions that they know to be against the overwhelming views of those they represent. If they continue to refuse to grant the people a referendum, it will become one of those issues. In fact, it would be something more: it would take away two of their lives. The electorate are disillusioned and cynical about the body politic and the whole political process. If we deny them this opportunity again, the cynicism and disillusionment will grow. I am proud to say that I shall be supporting the motion this evening, and I urge all Members to do so.

James Clappison: This has been a good debate with some outstanding speeches, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). There have been timing issues during the debate. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) that to keep saying, “Now is not the right time”, is likely to engender frustration in the other member of the relationship. I believe that a referendum is long overdue. It has been a long time—1975—since we had a referendum. The world is a different place and the EU is certainly a different institution from what it was when we knew it as the Common Market.
	There were a few lonely voices in that referendum campaign who said that Europe was a political project and not just an economic project. Others might take a different view, but I think that those who said that have been proved right in spades. The other case made in that referendum campaign has been comprehensively disproved by subsequent events. As the European Union has changed incrementally, granting more powers and competences to itself through successive treaties—the Single European Act, the treaty of Nice, the treaty of Maastricht, the treaty of Amsterdam and the treaty of Lisbon—it has changed beyond recognition.
	We were right to offer the electorate a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon. Again on the timing, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that commitment to hold a referendum until that treaty had been ratified and stayed absolutely true to its terms. His commitment meant that if a Conservative Government had come to power at any point before 3 o’clock on 3 November 2009, amidst all the events taking place in 2008 and 2009, we would have been obliged to hold a referendum. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would have stayed true to that commitment and held a referendum, but now the electorate feel that they have been promised a referendum many times. There has been no shortage of promises, and many electorates in other countries have been allowed to hold a referendum, but not the British electorate.
	People today are waiting to have their say on the European Union. We have made our arguments about the European Union in this debate, and we have heard some arguments in favour of it from Opposition Members. Let them put those issues to the people and trust them to make the decision. We cannot be wrong to trust the people: that is why we are having these Back-Bench business debates. This is an excellent example of what can be achieved through such debates. We should send out the message in this debate that we are prepared to trust our constituents, who are the ones who sent us here.
	Now is the right time. We have seen much power transferred to the European Union. We need to free ourselves from the dead hand of European Union regulation to give ourselves a chance of achieving the higher growth rates achieved by non-members of the European Union and give our industry a chance. All that makes this an ideal time to have a referendum and set out the terms of that referendum. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to other Government Members that if we keep making these promises to the electorate and not fulfilling them, we will pay a heavy price in lost trust with that electorate. We have to remember that today.

Sam Gyimah: I have listened to the debate for the past five hours, and it is clear that we on the Conservative Benches are all Eurosceptics now. I speak in this debate as a Eurosceptic, and I could not put the case against the EU better than some of my colleagues have. However, I will not be voting against the motion, because I believe that anger and frustration are not enough to form our considerations; we need a clear-sighted, clear-eyed strategy to move forward.
	Let me mention some of the considerations that we need to take. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said—I paraphrase, probably
	poorly, in which case I am sorry—that we need to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that something is done. However, we must remember that to lead the country on this issue we need to be a united rather than a divided party. In 2010, just 13% of voters described the Conservative party as divided, but at the height of the Maastricht rebellion 50% described us as divided. We can all stand for our principles and say that this is only about our consciences—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, that nothing is more important, including the coalition—but we need to remember that in the reality of the political world, if we want to achieve something we have to balance those factors. We know from the 1997 election result that we need to be mindful of that.
	Why do I raise that point? Because when we were kicked out of office for being divided, we suffered the greatest setback in the European project. During those 13 years, the Labour Government opted into the social chapter, which was responsible for a lot of the regulations that have suffocated business and stifled growth, and in 2007 the Labour Government signed the Lisbon treaty. For all our high-minded principle in the mid-1990s, when we got kicked out of government because of division we set back our own project.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend is speaking as though this were a Conservative party issue, but we can see from the debate today that it is a cross-party issue. The question that we face today is: do we trust the people to make this decision or not? The pros and cons of Europe can be discussed later.

Sam Gyimah: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am not speaking as though this were a Conservative party issue, but we can see that the media, in every interview, have pitted Conservative against Conservative. We need to be careful about divisions on our side.
	Of course people need to decide, but we should be careful not to jump from responding to an e-petition that has been signed by a number of people to assuming that this issue is on every voter’s mind. A number of voters will talk about the fact that they care about their jobs. A number will say that they want their streets to be secure. Others will say that they want their children to have a better life than their own. National polls show that when the issue of Europe is considered on its own, everyone is hostile to it, but in general elections, its salience disappears. We need to adopt a very clear-eyed strategy in dealing with this.
	I will not be supporting the motion. It should be clear from the debate today, especially to those who are saying that we would be better off out, that, with the eurozone on its knees, we now have the best opportunity to negotiate the best conditions for Britain. It would be catastrophic for us to walk away from the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) suggested, as that would result in our giving up influence.

Mark Reckless: I am sure that the constituents of East Surrey will have followed the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) with great interest this evening.
	In the 1975 referendum, the country was assured—by a Conservative Prime Minister, I am afraid—that there was no question of any erosion of national sovereignty. The people were told that we would have a veto over any important issue, yet those same people have now seen that what they were told was a Common Market has become a political union in which we can be outvoted, whether we like it or not. They see other countries not following the rules when our country does follow them, and they see an institution whose accounts have not been signed off for some 20 years, yet we continue to give it money year after year. In the coming year, we are giving the European Union £10.9 billion. That is the net contribution, taking account of what we get back. Indeed, in every year except one, we have given more money to the EU than we have got back. That one year was 1974, the year before we last had a referendum on this matter. That was the only year in which we received more money from the EU than we gave. Members who have yet to make up their mind might like to reflect, in the light of that £10.9 billion, that when putting pressure on the EU to reduce our budget contribution, nothing would concentrate its mind more than the knowledge that this country might hold a referendum on our membership of the EU.
	There now has to be a referendum. The people have heard too many promises, made by too many parties over too many years. They now want to decide for themselves what our future in Europe, or as an independent country, might be. There has been significant movement on this side of the House during today’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) asked why we were having this discussion, 18 months into the Parliament, and why there was so much disagreement. He wondered why the coalition did not agree on this matter. The reason is that the 57 Liberal Democrat coalition Members were given the referendum on the alternative vote that they wanted, yet a far larger number on the Conservative Benches have not been given the referendum that we want on our country’s position in the EU.

Martin Horwood: We have discussed this already. The Conservative manifesto did not make a commitment to an in/out referendum; it committed to a referendum lock, which we have achieved through the European Union Act 2011.

Mark Reckless: The Conservative party had offered a referendum on Lisbon. The Liberal Democrats had offered a referendum with a choice between the EU with Lisbon and leaving the EU. However, what the country got, through the coalition agreement, was the Lisbon treaty and no referendum on anything. Three or four days ago, the Liberal Democrats’ website was still campaigning for an in/out referendum, but that has now been removed. Not only have they gone against what they told the electorate on student fees, but they have done the same on Europe.

Sheryll Murray: I voted in the last referendum in 1974. It was the first time I had—[Interruption.] The question was whether we wanted to stay in the European economic area. We have never had a referendum on whether we want to be members of the European Union.

Mark Reckless: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have the opportunity this evening to give our constituents that referendum—to decide whether they want to be governed by people whom they elect, whom they can hold to account, whom they can throw out if they do not agree with how we vote, whether we make the decisions for them, or whether instead a qualified majority of 26 other countries will decide what the law of this country should be while we pay £10.9 billion a year for the privilege. That is the decision. It is no longer a decision that we can hope to keep within this Westminster bubble, without our constituents having their say. Sooner or later, that decision is going to be made.
	We heard earlier that there was going to be a referendum and that a Conservative-led or a coalition Government of some stripe would renegotiate sooner rather than later. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary told us that they were going to bring back powers over social and employment policy, but what is key now is whether our constituents will get to vote on the outcome. Do they want to stay in with whatever improvements we have been able to negotiate, however great or otherwise they might be, or do they want to come out and be an independent country, trading with Europe but governing ourselves? I say to Members, particularly those who are undecided, that that decision must now be our constituents’ decision. That is the way in which we will restore belief and trust in politics.

Aidan Burley: I support the principle of having an EU referendum, yet I will not support the motion. Let me explain why those two positions are not contradictory.
	I am on record as saying that our membership of the EU should be put to the British people. I am 32, and I find it incredible that the last referendum took place four years before I was even born. One has to be 55 to have voted in it. It is therefore understandable that people of my generation do not feel that they have had their say on Europe. They see the EU interfering in our everyday lives, from how fruit and vegetables are packaged, to the number of announcements on trains and, most insidious of all, how long we are allowed to work in our jobs—for just 48 hours a week. [Interruption.] It is clear to me that what was put to the people in 1975—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman has been waiting courteously; he deserves a proper hearing, and that is what he must get.

Aidan Burley: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	It is clear that what was put to the people in 1975—we should remember that they voted yes—was the Common Market, but the European Union that exists today would be unrecognisable to those who voted then. When Britain joined the Common Market, it signed up to a free trade agreement. Since then, the power of European institutions has changed beyond all recognition. I am delighted that the Government have enshrined in law that a referendum must be held before any further powers are ceded to Brussels. This is a major step—one that I have supported with enthusiasm.
	Frankly, given the EU’s propensities for creating new treaties, I suspect it will not be long before the people get the vote that they desire and deserve. That vote will be important. If the public vote in favour of a future treaty, it will rule out for another generation any thought of us ever leaving the EU. If the public vote to reject it, I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, for there not to be a subsequent vote on our withdrawal. Given that the referendum that I want is inevitable, as a result of the laws passed by the Conservatives, I must think carefully about the current motion and its impact on the people of Cannock Chase.

Andrew Percy: I respect my hon. Friend’s views. Like him, I was born after the last referendum on the matter, but the problem with his argument is that it does not give us the opportunity to have a say on whether we want to be in the EU. That is what my and his generation want to have. We have never been asked that before, and it is about time that we were.

Aidan Burley: I think that our generation will be given that choice.
	I must consider the impact that passing this motion would have on my constituents. That is the key point. Business men have told me that there are signs that give cause for optimism, but that the recovery is fragile.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Aidan Burley: No, I will not.
	Those business men’s fear, and mine, is that the announcement of a referendum, involving the campaign extending to 2013 for which the motion calls, could have a devastating effect on business confidence and investment. This morning I spoke to a business man from my constituency who had come here to be given a tour of the House of Commons. He works for an international company in the private sector which has invested heavily in the United Kingdom and employs several hundred people in my constituency, and he has already been told by the members of his executive board in America that the potential further instability caused by a referendum could cause them to question future investment not just in Cannock Chase, but in the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Aidan Burley: I will not.
	At a time when business is crying out for stability, a referendum would move it in totally the opposite direction, creating yet more instability when what we need is foreign investment. While that business man would not oppose a referendum in principle, now is simply not the time for one.
	I think that the referendum that we all want is coming, and will be a result of the policies that have already been backed by the Government and by the EU itself. However, I think that to hold that referendum now, regardless of the result, would create a significant risk for our economy and for Cannock Chase in particular.
	I say to every Member who supports the motion, “Ask yourself one question: are you willing to jeopardise the recovery?”
	[Interruption.]
	British people are worried—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, British people are worried about bread-and-butter issues. They are worried about jobs and about their livelihoods. I do not want to do anything that puts my constituents’ livelihoods at risk. The time will come for people to vote on whether we stay in the EU, but, in my opinion, that time is not today. This is a debate for another day. Voting for the motion would be an indulgence, and I hope Members will vote accordingly. [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It will want to hear Mr Christopher Chope.

Christopher Chope: In essence, the debate is about whether we are representatives of the people, or delegates of the Government or the shadow Government. I think that those who have argued today in support of our being representatives of the people have won the debate—a debate in which I am proud to have been able to participate, having sat here for the best part of five and a half hours.
	This time last night I was at a polling station in Tunisia, observing the election results. People were queuing for more than three hours just to exercise their right to vote. It is vital that, in Tunisia and in this country, the people do not elect representatives and then find that those representatives go back on their word. There is a certain worry in Tunisia that that may happen in the case of the party with the most votes. I believe, however, that in this country participation in elections has been plummeting because on too many occasions we have promised something to the electorate and then let them down.
	I do not think that we should hold a referendum until we have had a chance to conduct a proper evaluation of the costs and benefits of our membership of the European Union. In the last Parliament I tabled a Bill to achieve just that, which was supported by both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. Now neither of those Front Benches supports the idea of such an audit. Why not? I think that that is indicative of the present cynicism about the issue of Europe.
	As for timing, many people have forgotten that the forthcoming seven-year budget presents us with a great opportunity. Once every seven years, we have a veto over the EU budget. I think it a pity that the Foreign Secretary effectively indicated today that he was satisfied that we would be doing very well if the next seven-year budget contained only an increase in line with inflation. We are telling local authorities and people working for Governments that they must make real-terms cuts. Why are the Government selling us short by not entering into those negotiations in a much more hard-headed way? If we pass this motion, or give it a tremendous amount of support, it will strengthen the Government’s hand in their efforts to secure a better deal and negotiate a reduction in our contribution to the EU budget, rather than a real-terms increase. The Government have fallen short of their responsibilities to the people on too many occasions, and the message coming from the House
	tonight is that the Government must listen and the EU must listen and we, the people, must press the point home that we want a referendum. We want to trust the people.

Peter Bone: It is customary when summing up to say, “This has been a good debate,” but this has been an amazing debate. We must thank the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the Backbench Business Committee for putting it on, and we must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for having opened it so sensibly so many hours ago. I have sat and listened to most of the debate, but as there were 52 speeches, I must apologise to the majority of contributors because I will not be able to respond to what they said.
	Let me say at the beginning, however, that I must praise the Prime Minister. If it were not for him, we would not have the Backbench Business Committee. If it were not for him, we would not have petitions either, and it is the petitioning of this House of Commons that has brought this debate into being. I also thank the Prime Minister for his speech on 26 May 2009, when he encouraged returning power to the people. He said that in the past when debates were held in this House, the arguments went one way and the other, but then the bells rang and the Whips got into action and Members floated through the Commons like a herd of sheep. That is not going to happen tonight. I am going to take the advice of my Prime Minister when he encouraged every Member to be independent-minded, to put his constituents first, to put his country first, and to put narrow party interests last. I say, “Well done, Prime Minister,” and I will be voting in accordance with my conscience tonight.
	It is unfortunate that some of the Whips have not quite got the Prime Minister’s message yet, but there is a rule of thumb in this House: if the three Front Benches agree on something, it is absolutely wrong. That is the situation tonight.
	I say to my Whips that a mistake has been made tonight. The Backbench Business Committee was set up to test the will of Parliament, not in order for us to vote on party lines. This is exactly the sort of debate on which we should have a free vote. I am of the opinion that if there had been a free vote tonight, this motion would have been carried.
	Lights have started flashing, instructing me to shut up early, although I thought I could go on for a little longer. I am afraid I must apologise to all 52 members who contributed for not having had time to comment on their speeches, but I will write to them.
	Question put.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any reason why the vote is being delayed?

Mr Speaker: The Tellers are in. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been here a long time—[Interruption.] I do not know why people are referring to three-figure
	numbers; the hon. Gentleman has not been here that long. His patience will be rewarded. He does not have long to wait and must calm himself. I like to see him in a state of permanent calm. That is my ambition.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 111, Noes 483.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business Without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.—(Angela Watkinson.)
	Question agreed to.

committees

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 3 to 8, all six of them, together. The motions are in the name of the Chair of the Committee of Selection.
	Ordered ,

Business, Innovation and Skills

That Dan Jarvis and Ian Murray be discharged from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and Julie Elliott and Ann McKechin be added.

Culture, Media and Sport

That Cathy Jamieson be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Steve Rotheram be added.

Defence

That Mr Mike Hancock be discharged from the Defence Committee and Bob Russell be added.

Health

That Yvonne Fovargue be discharged from the Health Committee and Barbara Keeley be added.

Northern Ireland Affairs

That Ian Lavery be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr David Anderson be added.

Public Accounts

That Stella Creasy and Mrs Anne McGuire be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Meg Hillier and Fiona Mactaggart be added.—(Mr Mark Francois, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Mr Speaker: We come now to the Adjournment. Just before I call the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), may I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the hon. Lady that they would wish to be extended to them in similar circumstances?

LIVE ANIMAL EXPORTS (PORT OF RAMSGATE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Laura Sandys: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	First, I should like to make a great apology to the Minister, whom I seem to keep up regularly at this time of night—on matters DEFRA.

Daniel Kawczynski: And his Parliamentary Private Secretary!

Laura Sandys: Great apologies to his PPS as well.
	Given the theme of the motion on which we have just voted—the European Union and the barriers that it sometimes puts up to our cultural and historical norms—I want to raise the issue of live animal exports leaving the port of Ramsgate.
	We are a nation of animal lovers, and we maintain and have always maintained the highest standards of animal welfare. Indeed, as I am sure the Minister knows, we passed our first piece of animal welfare legislation almost 400 years ago, so is it not rather surprising that sheep and two-week-old calves are driven from as far away as southern Ireland, across the Irish sea to Ramsgate, across the channel and then as far as Greece? Should we in this country endorse such transport and trade?
	Tens of thousands of animals have arrived at Ramsgate this year to be put on a Soviet ship—a roll-on/roll-off ferry that was designed for river and inland water transport. On to the boat they go in their trucks, with water spraying and in gales of up to force 6. The longest estimated channel crossing is five hours due to very adverse weather conditions. Those journeys are inhumane.
	The Minister knows that the trade is deeply undesirable, but on these issues we are not in control of our destiny, because we are controlled by the EU, which views animals as goods rather than as sentient beings. This is not a new issue, however, because the stalemate was experienced under the previous Government. For 13 years, we had little or no progress on ensuring that we improved animal welfare and, in particular, transportation.
	I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that residents from all over Kent, including the Thanet Against Live Exports and Kent Against Live Exports groups and many individuals have written to me. I have received four times as much correspondence on this issue as I have on the EU referendum.
	This debate is particularly important given the timely review of the EU’s regulation on the transportation of live exports so I should like the Minister to outline what the Government will submit in response to the review, and I urge him also to take the evidence that my residents have gathered and to include it in our submission in order to show what really happens at the coal face of this trade.
	We must revisit the number of hours an animal can be transported without lairage. Fourteen hours for sheep is too long, and a one-hour stopover is not long enough. Calves that are only 14 days old are taken half way across Europe on land and sea. That is an ordeal.
	I commend the Government for aggressively pressing for revised labelling of meat products. Meat will have to show the country of origin, not just the country of slaughter, which in previous years has allowed much of our British beef to be designated as French, Spanish or Greek when the animals were born and bred in the UK or Ireland. Greater transparency will give European consumers the choice of whether to endorse live exports.
	There is additional good news. The live export trade has diminished significantly over the past 20 years from more than 300,000 animals a year to around 50,000. But that tells its own story. Reputable meat wholesalers transport animals to Europe not on the hoof, but as carcasses. Today we have abattoirs in the UK that butcher meat to meet the unique tastes of any part of Europe, and that poses a question. Who are the small number of people who transport live animals, and exploit EU single market legislation? Who are the individuals who believe that transporting live animals is humane and financially viable?
	DEFRA has responsibility for issuing export health certificates, and is the competent authority that licenses those who transport animals. Enforcement, even of the existing regulations, is crucial, and I ask the Minister to take further action. As the licensing authority, DEFRA must do more investigations as soon as possible into whether the wholesaler or the owner of the Ramsgate ship, Joline, have any connections with business men who have already been convicted of animal cruelty? Has the Department made the necessary inquiries to find out whether someone who was prosecuted in Folkestone for six offences against animal welfare has any connection with the current trade out of Ramsgate?

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady referred to the fact that sheep, cattle and young calves come from Ireland to the UK mainland and then cross over to Europe. Does she believe that DEFRA should contact the Irish Republic’s Agriculture Minister to ensure that what the hon. Lady wants to be stopped in England is also stopped in the Republic of Ireland?

Laura Sandys: I welcome that intervention, and I totally agree. There should be an EU-wide regulation on the transport of animals, but it is incumbent on us to enforce our existing domestic regulations. I urge the Minister to examine the matter.
	It is understood that a former trader who has had several prosecutions is located in the same offices in Amsterdam as the company that holds the licence to operate the Joline for animal transport from Ramsgate. Coincidences may occur, but that feels a bit too close for comfort. More worrying are several reports of the operator not complying with the regulations. For example, it has sailed in a force 7 gale when the boat is licensed only for force 6. It has not provided adequate protection for the animals, and there have been discrepancies in the time spent in transport.
	This weekend, I was horrified to hear that at 9 pm on Friday, eight lorries turned up, but the ship is licensed for and can accommodate only seven lorries. The lorry drivers dismantled their cabs and drove to Dover to cross by ferry. The animals were loaded on to the ship without their drivers, who are responsible for their
	welfare. The ship did not leave the port until after 4 am. The animals then faced a four-hour trip across the channel taking them over the 11 hour regulated transport period. I understand that in addition, the ship was unable to dock at Calais for several hours because of the tides. The animals would then have had to be unloaded, and to leave Calais for a resting place.
	The report indicated that the transporters of the animals—those with the lorry licences and the operators of the ship—contravened animal welfare regulations. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Department investigates such reports and that action is taken to revoke licences immediately while further evidence is gathered. We believe that these operators are, at best, cavalier with the regulations and, at worst, have little interest in animal welfare.
	Action needs to be taken, and I hope for the Minister’s commitment on these matters. I know that he and his Department, like me and the residents of Thanet, would like to end this trade. Yes, we might have to wait a while for it to be banned altogether, but we must stop any cruelty that is happening under the current regulations and ensure that our animal welfare enforcement is robust, including in the port of Ramsgate.

James Paice: Let me start by thanking and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on seeking this debate to raise an issue that is of great concern not only to her constituents and residents in the wider area of Thanet but to me and to my Department, and to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, some of whom I am pleased to see have stayed for the debate.
	I emphasise that, as stated in the coalition agreement, this Government are committed to the highest standards of animal welfare, including their transport—how it is done and where it is done. Clearly, the Government would prefer animals to be slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production; and as far as breeding stock is concerned, we would like the trade to be only in meat or in germ plasm, because that is preferable to one based on live animals. That also has advantages in terms of animal welfare because it helps with our own domestic slaughter and in developing our own enterprise, business and industry. Moreover, as my hon. Friend rightly said, we now have all the butchery expertise to cater for whatever particular specifications overseas customers demand.
	As my hon. Friend said, the previous Government recognised that such a trade in live animals is lawful provided that the safeguards laid down in the European Union and in our own national welfare-in-transport legislation are observed. Whatever we may think about this, the Government have to comply with our international obligations.

Naomi Long: Will the Minister give way?

James Paice: Very briefly.

Naomi Long: Would the Minister advocate the tightening of the international rules to allow for cross-border trade in the case of operators who neighbour a border—for
	example, between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—with another slaughterhouse on the other side in order to avoid long, arduous journeys such as those described by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys)?

James Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will come to some of those points. Yes, there is a distinction between cases where there happens to be a border, but it is a few miles to an abattoir, and the sort of journey to which my hon. Friend has referred.
	The safeguards that I mentioned include the need for all commercial transporters of animals to be authorised and for drivers to pass a competency test. Indeed, I passed one myself. For long journeys, vehicles must be inspected and approved by qualified engineers working for authorised private vehicle inspection bodies. Also, for long journeys, transporters must apply for a journey log for each journey that provides the details of the proposed route, and these applications are checked by the Animal Health and Veterinary Agency before they are approved. More importantly, the journey logs have to be updated by the transporter as the journey progresses and returned once the journey is completed, and we then check whether the actual journey was in line with the original application. If there were any variations, they need to be investigated to see whether they were consistent with the legislation.
	There are many other safeguards in the transport legislation, such as the fitness-to-travel rules in terms of the animal itself and technical requirements on space allowances, ventilation, water, and so on. I want to emphasise that the commercial transport of animals on journeys of more than eight hours is highly regulated. On top of all the checks before and after a long journey, inspectors undertake risk-based checks on consignments, either when the animals are loaded at the point of departure or on arrival at the port of Ramsgate. They have powers on discovery of any infringement by individual transporters—that has happened a number of times—and that can lead to suspension or revocation of the transporter’s authorisation to transport animals or the withdrawal of their vehicle approval certificate. I emphasise and, in effect, give a warning that all those engaged in this trade must ensure that they are fully in compliance with all the regulations, because we will continue to be as tough as possible on this trade. It has been the subject of a number of legal challenges over the years by local authorities and port authorities.
	The trade in live animals to the continent for slaughter has fluctuated markedly, as my hon. Friend said. There have been periods, such as during the outbreaks of BSE, foot and mouth and, more recently, tuberculosis, when the trade has been halted or interrupted. As she rightly said, the scale has dramatically reduced, so its impact on the economics of the UK livestock sector is now minimal, if anything at all. The present trade is tiny at just a few tens of thousands of animals and certainly fewer than 50,000 so far this year.
	The concept of free trade is enshrined in national legislation in the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, and more recently in article 34 of the treaty of Rome. The latter states:
	“Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States.”
	Some welfare lobbyists have suggested that changing the 1847 Act is the way forward. However, such a move would clearly be illegal as it would be contrary to article 34 of the treaty.
	On the subject of EU treaties, I would like to lay to rest the idea that member states might deal with this issue through article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which states:
	“Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”
	Some suggest that that is a new requirement and that, therefore, long journeys can no longer be considered legal. That is not the case. The corresponding text of article 13 was previously set out in the binding protocol to the treaty of Amsterdam, which was agreed in 1997. It was therefore already a requirement to treat animals as sentient beings when the European Council agreed the terms of Council Regulation 1/2005. I am afraid that that is not a legal option open to us.
	My hon. Friend raised a number of specific points. She rightly referred to the recent changes at European level to make labelling fresh meat with the country of origin mandatory. We are awaiting the detail of that, but I sincerely hope that it will have the effect that she and I want it to have. We have always supported the need for country-of-origin labelling to ensure that British consumers are properly informed. However, that same legislation must not deceive consumers overseas into believing that sheep—it is mainly sheep—born and reared in the UK are native to France, Spain or wherever they are bought.
	My hon. Friend referred to the licensing of the ship and the lorries. She referred obliquely to a Mr Onderwater. There is no doubt that he is closely involved in this trade and she is right that he has been prosecuted for cruelty. I cannot comment on the authenticity of her comment about where his office is, but he is not the authorised holder of the shipping licence, which was issued in Latvia. We have asked the Latvian authorities for details of it and they say that his name is not on the licence.
	My hon. Friend referred to what happened on Friday. I was not aware of the eight lorries that she referred to. However, there is no legal specification about the number of lorries allowed on the ship. The specification is about the number of people who travel. We believe that that is why some of the lorry drivers decamped and travelled via Dover. I am aware of the six-hour delay in loading to which she referred, which is clearly unacceptable. Whether it was illegal is questionable, because it could count as part of the rest period. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency issued a notice to sail to stop any further delay. I admit that I did not know until today that such a power existed. The AHVLA is considering the best course of regulatory action. We are seriously inclined to introduce a maximum period of two hours to load and sail, to prevent that from happening again.

John McDonnell: Many of us have constituents who have expressed concerns over the years, and who specifically want swift action on preventing the sail. I think that would help greatly.

James Paice: I think that preventing the sail might be counter-productive, because then the animals might face a longer journey back to where they came from if
	they had come from, say, the Republic of Ireland. However, we are taking measures to ensure that the ship sails quickly after loading, so that loading and sailing take place within two hours. I should also emphasise that it is a requirement of European legislation that all the necessary arrangements are made in advance, so that welfare is not compromised by insufficient co-ordination between the parts of the journey.
	The motor vessel Joline, to which my hon. Friend referred, is licensed to sail in up to force 6 gales. We have recently had concern that she was sailing at what was considered to be the margin of that safety level. The captain was warned, but I emphasise that that is a maritime safety issue and not directly related to animal welfare, although clearly the welfare of the animals may be affected. There is no evidence that the captain has sailed in winds higher than force 6, but if I may use this phrase, he has sailed close to the wind.
	There have been a large number of investigations by the AHVLA, but I need to emphasise that virtually all of them are about the vehicles rather than the ship. That is rather an important point, because it brings us to the enforcement of the existing legislation. That is an important consideration, particularly when we are discussing long journeys. The European Commission has spent nearly two years gathering data on the impact of the legislation and is due to report very shortly. It is too late for us to make any further submissions, as my hon. Friend suggested, but as soon as the report is published we will study it very carefully. We understand that it will have something to say about the level of enforcement across the Community, but will not make any recommendations of changes to the existing legislation. If that is the case, I can assure her that we will make further representations.
	Whatever the report concludes, I will press the European Commission to come forward with proposals on both tightening the current enforcement of the existing rules
	and reviewing the existing long journey requirements to encourage shorter, more sustainable journeys linked to available slaughter capacity. Whatever the eventual outcome, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it must be based on the available scientific evidence, not subjective opinion or belief. I have to say to her that many member states will be opposed to any such tightening of those rules, and because the European Commission appears reluctant to take any action, any changes to the current rules on long journeys are unlikely to be achieved in the immediate future. That brings the matter back to this country and to my Department.
	I believe that a more sustainable approach to the transport of livestock on long journeys must be found, and I will push for that at every available opportunity in the framework of future EU discussions on animal welfare during transport. I can say to my hon. Friend that, as I implied earlier, we will use every measure available to us within the bounds of legislation to be as robust as we can in ensuring that the highest welfare standards that can be achieved are achieved. As I said, we want to ensure that all those involved in the trade, whether they be shipping people or those running the lorries that transport cattle and sheep, are under no illusion that we will deal with them as robustly as we possibly can and take whatever measures are possible whenever there is an infringement.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Although I have not been able to do what I know she and other Members would like me to do, which is to declare that we will ban the trade—I am not able to do that—I hope she will rest assured that we will take every measure we can within the legislative arrangements that we have.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.